Mercury in The Terrestrial Environment - A Review - Environmental Sciences Europe - Full Text

Download PDF
Get published Explore Journals Books About Login

Search
Menu
Environmental Sciences Europe
About Articles Submission Guidelines
Download PDF
Review Open Access Published: 02 October 2020
Mercury in the terrestrial

environment: a review
Barbara Gworek, Wojciech Dmuchowski & Aneta H.
Baczewska-Dąbrowska
Environmental Sciences Europe 32, Article number: 128

(2020)
15k Accesses 49 Citations 12 Altmetric Metrics
Abstract
Background
Environmental contamination by mercury is and will
continue to be a serious risk for human health.
Pollution of the terrestrial environment is
particularly important as it is a place of human life
and food production. This publication presents a
review of the literature on issues related to mercury
pollution of the terrestrial environment: soil and
plants and their transformations.
Results
Different forms of atmospheric Hg may be deposited Download PDF
on surfaces by way of wet and dry processes. These

forms may be sequestered within terrestrial
compartments or emitted back into the atmosphere,
and the relative importance of these processes is
dependent on the form of Hg, the surface chemistry,
and the environmental conditions. On the land
surface, Hg deposition mainly occurs in the oxidized
form (Hg2+), and its transformations are associated
primarily with the oxidation–reduction potential of
the environment and the biological and chemical
processes of methylation. The deposition of Hg
pollutants on the ground with low vegetation is as 3–
5 times lower than that in forests. The estimation of
Hg emissions from soil and plants, which occur
mainly in the Hg0 form, is very difficult. Generally,
the largest amounts of Hg are emitted from tropical
regions, followed by the temperate zone, and the
lowest levels are from the polar regions. Areas with
vegetation can be ranked according to the size of the
emissions as follows: forests > other areas (tundra,
savannas, and chaparral) > agricultural
areas > grassland ecosystems; areas of land devoid of
vegetation emit more Hg than those with plants. In
areas with high pollution, such as areas near Hg
mines, the Hg content in soil and plants is much
higher than in other areas.
Conclusions
Mercury is recognized as a toxic, persistent, and
mobile contaminant; it does not degrade in the
environment and becomes mobile because of the
volatility of the element and several of its
compounds. Atmospheric contamination by mercury Download PDF
continues to be one of the most important

environmental problems in the modern world. The
general conclusions were drawn from a review of the
literature and presented in this paper.
Background
Mercury is recognized as a toxic, persistent, and

mobile contaminant; it does not degrade in the
environment and becomes mobile because of the
volatility of the element and several of its
compounds. Moreover, mercury has the ability to be
transported within air masses over very long
distances [1].
Over the last few decades, considerable scientific

knowledge has been developed on the sources and
emissions of mercury, its pathways and cycling
through the environment, human exposure, and
impacts on the environment and human health [2].
Hg is the only element in the periodic table to have its
own environmental convention, i.e., the Minamata
Convention on Mercury, thus highlighting the
importance of the Hg pollution issue [3].
An improved understanding of the global mercury

(Hg) cycle is important for our capacity to predict
how regulatory efforts to reduce current emissions to
air, water and land will affect Hg concentrations in
environmental compartments, biota and humans. Hg
is released into the environment through human
activities and via natural sources and processes, such
as volcanoes and rock weathering. Following its Download PDF
release, Hg is transported and recycled between the

major environmental compartments, i.e., air, soil and
water, until it is eventually removed from the system
through burial in coastal and deep ocean sediments,
lake sediments, and subsurface soils [2, 4].
Hg is considered to be a peculiar chemical element

because it displays particularly strong chemical and
biological activity as well as variability in form (liquid
and gaseous). Hg compounds with very different
chemical and physical properties are included in
various cycles of its natural circulation [5, 6]. Hg is a
globally distributed pollutant due to characteristics
such as low melting and boiling points, conversions
between chemical forms and participation in
biological cycles. As a result of anthropogenic
emissions, the global atmospheric Hg deposition rate
is approximately three times higher than that in
preindustrial times and has increased by a factor of
2–10 in and around the most industrialized regions
[7].
Hg-contaminated land environments pose a risk to

global public health, with Hg being listed as one of
the ‘ten leading chemicals of concern’ [8]. In 2013,
the United Nations (UN) introduced the ‘Minamata
Convention on Mercury’ [9], which aims for a more
global effort for managing the risk presented by Hg to
human health and the environment. The Minamata
Convention has as of today 123 parties and the
convention entered into force 16 August 2017. This
concerted action, if successful, will have great
implications for public health for decades to come; Download PDF
however, there are many hurdles on the way to

achieving this goal [10, 11].
Our understanding of the critical processes driving

global Hg cycling, particularly those that affect the
large-scale exchange of Hg among major
environmental compartments, has advanced
substantially over the past decade. This progress has
been driven by major advances in three
interconnected areas: new data, new models, and new
analytical tools and techniques [12].
The main task for improving our knowledge of

mercury sources, fates, impacts, and emission control
options was defined at the 14th ICMGP Conference in
2019 [13] as “Bridging knowledge on global mercury
with environmental responsibility, human welfare
and policy response”. The main four questions that
require urgent answers within this subject are
defined as follows:
1. How is mercury biogeochemical cycling

changing on global, regional, and local scales in
response to perturbations caused by major
anthropogenic drivers of environmental change?
2. What is the relative risk of mercury exposure to
human health and wildlife in the context of
human welfare?
3. How can technological development contribute
to the reduction in mercury exposure and
improvement of environmental responsibility?
4. How can scientific knowledge contribute to the
implementation and effectiveness evaluation of Download PDF
the Minamata Convention and other regulatory

agreements, and what is the importance of
integrating and implementing emerging and
future mercury research into the policy making?
Methods
While developing this paper, the method

recommended by Liberati et al. [14] was used to some
extent. However, the strict use of this method was not
possible due to the specifics of our publication. The
problems of pollution and Hg transformation in the
environment caused by significant threats to human
health represent the subject of research by numerous
research teams around the world. However, many
publications do not meet the criterion of quality of
research results. Therefore, the following criteria
were used to eliminate publications:
i. Accurate descriptions of the research methods

were lacking;
ii. Methods that did not guarantee the quality of
the results were used;
iii. The latest publications were selected, but
historical works were not omitted;
iv. Publications from various countries and regions
were cited.
Hg emission
The advances achieved over the last decade for the
assessment of Hg emissions from major man-made
and natural sources have contributed to
improvements in the assessments of the impacts of
atmospheric deposition of Hg on the terrestrial Download PDF
environment [15]. The assessment of Hg emissions

poses serious methodological problems. In estimating
these impacts, state institutions mainly focus on
inventories of their sources, while international
organizations apply different models and use
emission factors and statistical data of industrial
production and consumption of Hg-containing
materials. It is particularly difficult to distinguish
natural and anthropogenic emissions from re-
emissions from the land and oceans [16, 17]. Hg
emission sources include both natural processes
unfolding in the biosphere and anthropogenic
sources. In 2008, the following classification was
adopted in a UNEP report [18], which distinguished
three emission sources:
Current emissions from natural sources;

Current emissions from anthropogenic sources;
Re-emissions from historical deposits from
natural and anthropogenic sources.
Environmental archives offer an opportunity to

reconstruct temporal trends in atmospheric Hg
deposition at various timescales. Lake sediment, peat,
ice cores, tree rings, and Hg stable isotope
measurements are offering new insights into
historical Hg cycling. Preindustrial Hg deposition has
been studied over decadal to millennial timescales
extending as far back as the Late Pleistocene.
Exploitation of mercury deposits (mainly cinnabar)
first began during the Mid- to Late-Holocene in
South America, Europe, and Asia, but increased
dramatically during the Colonial era (1532–1900) for
silver production [19, 20]. Artisanal gold mining is Download PDF
now thought responsible for over half the global

stream flux of Hg, followed by the burning of coal [2,
21].
Fluxes of Hg to the air occur via the volatilization of

Hg0 as well as through wind entrainment of Hg
bound to dust particles (often referred to as fugitive
dust emissions). The relative magnitude of these two
types of Hg emission sources varies depending on
site-specific conditions. However, due to the long
atmospheric lifetime of Hg0, these emissions mostly
contribute to the global pool of Hg, whereas the
fugitive dust emissions impacts are more local [22].
The updated global mercury budget shows the impact

of human activities on the mercury cycle and the
resulting increase in mercury accumulated in soil and
oceans. The updated global mercury budget in 2018
[2] is shown in Table 1. The annual deposits were 480
tons higher than the emissions, indicating
considerable enrichment in the environment. In
general [23, 24], Hg0 emissions from undisturbed
nongeologically thermally enriched areas are <
1 ng m−2 h−1, whereas fluxes from contaminated sites
can be several orders of magnitude higher at >
5000 ng m−2 h−1. For contaminated sites that cover
large spatial areas (such as mining operations), the
annual emissions from the entire surface area have
been shown to range from 19 to 105 kg year−1 from
active industrial gold mines and 51 kg year−1 from a
large abandoned Hg mining area.
Table 1 The updated global mercury budget Download PDF
[2] (Mg/year)
Various models are applied to estimate Hg emission

levels into the atmosphere. However, the emission
levels determined by using these models differ
substantially. Travnikov et al. [25] compared the
global emission levels from natural and
anthropogenic sources determined by using four
models [26,27,28,29]. The models differed
significantly in their estimations of global total
emissions, with values ranging from 4000 Mg year−1
to 9230 Mg year−1, of which natural emissions and
re-emission ranged from 45 to 66% of the total
emissions. A later summary of the four models [30]
estimated that global anthropogenic emissions were
1870 Mg year−1, although the global natural
emissions and re-emissions were already significantly
different from each other at 3995 Mg year−1 to
8600 Mg year−1 [31]. The proportions between the
amounts of natural emissions and anthropogenic
emissions are not precisely determined. The ratios
vary by authors and encompass a relatively wide
range from 0.8 to 1.8 [32,33,34]. The relatively broad
emission ranges presented in various studies are
caused by the following factors: volatility of Hg
compounds, distribution of sources, low levels of Hg
concentrations in the air, concentrations that are
much lower than levels of other basic pollutants and
difficulty of determination [35, 36].
Annual mercury emissions in selected regions of the
world in 2000–2015 are shown in Table 2. Despite Download PDF
the many applicable global, regional and national

programs and conventions aimed at reducing Hg
emissions, the global THg emissions in the years
2000–2015 increased by 1.8% [11]. Emission
reductions only took place in North America and
Europe without the former USSR, and the largest
increase was in Central America (5.4%) and South
Asia (4.0%).
Table 2 Annual emissions of mercury by

selected world region [11] (Mg/year)
Emission values [11] for the aggregated source

categories and their composition are shown in
Table 3. Three categories had the highest absolute
value in 2015: gold ASMG (775.1 Mg/year), coal
combustion (558.3 Mg/year) and cement production
(206.3 Mg/year). From 2010 to 2015, the largest
increase in emissions was demonstrated by cement
production (6.3%), gold production at a large scale
(5.2%) and industrial metal extraction (4.6%). The
reductions [37] were in the following fields: dental
(− 5.6%) and electrical equipment (− 5.2%). This
finding is consistent with the continued expansion of
the global economy, but is less than the growth in
world GDP over the same period (5.7%/year),
suggesting continuous improvement in pollutant
emissions per unit of production.
Table 3 Annual emissions of mercury by Download PDF
selected source category [11] (Mg/year)
Mercury emissions from natural sources

The estimate of Hg emissions from natural sources
includes contributions from primary natural sources
and the re-emission processes of historically
deposited Hg over land and sea surfaces. Hg emitted
from volcanoes, geothermal sources and topsoil
enriched in Hg pertains to primary natural sources,
whereas the re-emission of previously deposited Hg
on vegetation, land or water surfaces is primarily
related to land use changes, biomass burning,
meteorological conditions and gaseous Hg exchange
mechanisms at the air–water/topsoil/snow–ice pack
interfaces [15, 38].
A characteristic feature of natural Hg emissions

compared to anthropogenic sources is their
distributed nature and wide range of distribution. Hg
from natural sources is introduced on a global scale
into the atmosphere, and Hg from anthropogenic
sources is deposited mainly locally and regionally;
therefore, determining emission levels and applying
effective control methods are difficult. Natural Hg
emission processes also include re-emission of Hg
previously deposited from the atmosphere in the
process of wet and dry deposition from both natural
and anthropogenic sources, which increases the
difficulty of estimating Hg emissions from natural
sources [34, 35, 39].
Annual global Hg emissions from natural sources on
land are estimated by various authors and cover a Download PDF
wide value range, e.g., total emissions of 1600–

2500 Mg year−1, including re-emissions of 790–
2000 Mg year−1. According to most authors, re-
emissions were higher than primary emissions
[40,41,42].
Volcanoes
Volcanoes and geothermal activities are important
sources of Hg pollution in terrestrial environments.
Hg is emitted from volcanoes primarily as gaseous
Hg0, and the Hg/SO2 ratio is generally adopted to
estimate Hg emissions. The annual average of Hg
released to the atmosphere without episodic strong
eruptions for volcanoes and geothermal activities is ~
75–112 Mg year−1 of Hg, accounting for
approximately < 2% of the contribution from natural
sources [15, 43,44,45]. In volcanic plumes, Hg is
present both in the gas phase as elemental Hg0 and
reactive HgII and in the particle phase as Hgp forms.
The proportions of these species are highly variable.
HgII and Hgp typically amount to < 5% of THg, with
Hg° as the most abundant form [46,47,48]. Hg levels
in volcanic ash nanoparticles (36 ± 4 mg kg−1) are
dramatically higher than their bulk concentrations
(0.08 mg kg−1) [49]. Many areas of geothermal
activity have long been associated with elevated levels
of Hg in the soil and air in places such as Hawaii,
Iceland, western parts of the United States and New
Zealand [43, 50].
The average annual global Hg emissions estimate
from biomass burning (emissions from wildfires: Download PDF
forests, savannas and grasslands) for 1997–2006 was

675 (± 240) Mg year −1, which accounts for 8% of all
current anthropogenic and natural emissions. The
largest Hg emissions are from tropical and boreal
Asia, followed by Africa and South America [51, 52].
The important factor for Hg concentrations in forest
soils is the time since stand-replacing fires have
occurred, and high soil burn severity has the potential
to reduce the concentrations of Hg in burned soils for
tens to hundreds of years [53, 54]. In a specific
emission source in Nisyros Island (Greece), Hg
concentrations in fumarolic gases in Nisyros Island
(Greece) ranged from 10,500 to 46,300 ng/m3, while
Hg concentrations in the air ranged from high
background values in the Lakki Plain caldera (10–36
ng/m3) up to 7100 ng/m3 in the fumarolic areas [55].
Exchange of mercury between atmospheric and

terrestrial ecosystems
Air-, soil- or vegetation-covered exchange fluxes are
an important part of global and regional
biogeochemical cycles [56]. Much of the HgII
deposited in precipitation or taken up by plants is
reduced to Hg0 and may be released back to the
atmosphere. Recent vegetation and soil Hg studies
suggested that vegetation Hg0 uptake dominates
(50–80%) Hg net deposition at terrestrial sites
[57,58,59].
The different forms of atmospheric Hg may be

deposited on surfaces by way of wet and dry
processes. These forms may be sequestered within
terrestrial compartments or emitted back to the Download PDF
atmosphere, with the relative importance of these

processes being dependent on the form of Hg, surface
chemistry, and environmental conditions. Many
models assume that the net GEM (gaseous elemental
mercury) exchange with soil surfaces is zero;
however, as discussed below, some components are
assimilated into foliage over the growing season and
accumulate in soils [59]. Smith-Downey et al. [60]
estimated that evasion of Hg linked to the
decomposition of soil organic carbon pools and
subsequent liberation of HgII sorbed to soil organic
matter is over 700 t/y, thus reflecting the large pool
of Hg stored in terrestrial ecosystems globally (over
240 kgt). In total, this study estimated that 56% of Hg
deposited to terrestrial ecosystems is reemitted.
Similarly, Graydon et al. [61] found that 45–70% of
isotopically labeled HgII wet-deposited to a forested
watershed had been reemitted to the atmosphere
after a year.
Litter deposition is the predominant source of Hg in

soil. Forest litter horizons show significant increases
in mass-dependent fractionation (MDF) during
decomposition concurrent with augmented total Hg
mass, and this relationship is most significant at
high-elevation sites [62, 63]. Measurements of
mercury in litterfall and throughfall have been
increasingly used to provide knowledge of mercury
deposition over forest canopies. The majority of
mercury in litterfall is considered to be from the
stomatal uptake of Hg0 and can be used as a rough
and conservative estimation of atmospheric mercury
dry deposition (the portion that is retained in leaves). Download PDF
Mercury in throughfall also includes a portion of

previously dry-deposited mercury (the portion that is
washed off from the canopy). Concurrent
measurements of litterfall, throughfall, and open-
space wet deposition measurements can be used to
estimate dry deposition on seasonal or longer time
scales, whereby dry deposition is approximated as
litterfall plus throughfall minus open-space wet
deposition [64, 65].
On the land surface, Hg deposition is mainly in the

oxidized form (Hg2+), and its transformations are
associated primarily with the oxidation–reduction
potential of the environment and with the biological
and chemical processes of methylation. For soils in
which oxidizing conditions predominate, the Hg2+
and Hg22+ forms dominate, and in soils with
reducing conditions, Hg and sulfur compounds are
mainly present. Methyl-Hg compounds are most
commonly found in soils with transient conditions
[5].
For GEM (Hg0), the residence time is estimated at 6

to 18 months, while GOM (gaseous mercury in
oxidized form) and TPM (total particulate mercury)
are quickly removed from the air through wet and dry
deposition, and their residence times are estimated to
be hours or days at most [66, 67]. Given the long time
for removal from the air, GEM can be transported
over large distances [16]. The particular Hg species
are characterized by different dry deposition rates,
which also determine their residence times. The dry
residence times of the different Hg species form the Download PDF
following series [68]:
GEM 0.19 cm s−1 < TPM 2:1 cm s−1 < GOM

7:6 cm s−1.
According to Marsik et al. [69], the dry deposition

rates of GOM and GEM are much higher during
daytime than nighttime. As with Lindberg et al. [68],
these authors explain this fact by the closure of plant
stomata at night. The deposition rates also depend on
the type of surface [70]. Caffrey et al. [71] determined
that the deposition rates of particulate air pollutants
on the ground with low vegetation were 3–5 times
lower than those in forests. Deposition is also affected
by the weather conditions, air humidity, insolation
and atmospheric precipitation. Research by Converse
et al. [72] in an uncontaminated high-elevation
wetland meadow in Shenandoah National Park,
Virginia (USA) showed the highest Hg deposition
occurred in spring (4.8 ng m−2 h−1), with a decrease
occurring in summer (2.5 ng m−2 h−1) to near zero
flux in fall (0.3 ng m−2 h−1), followed by an increase
in winter emissions (4.1 ng m−2 h−1). These studies
also suggest that stomatal processes are not the
dominant mechanism for ecosystem-level GEM
exchange. Table 4 shows a summary of biome-level
Hg depositions and soil Hg turnover times [60]. The
concentration of Hg in soils is therefore a function of
the deposition rate and carbon turnover time. High
soil concentrations in desert ecosystems are driven by
a combination of higher deposition and extremely
slow Hg turnover. Tropical and temperate lifetimes
are similar despite the faster carbon turnover in Download PDF
tropical systems due to the relative balance between

Hg provided by wet deposition and leaf uptake.
Table 4 Summary of biome-level Hg

deposition and soil Hg turnover times [60]
Emissions from soils have the form of GEM and

depend on many factors [73,74,75,76,77]:
The properties of soils, e.g., Hg content, the

contents of organic compounds, and saturation;
The concentrations of oxidants, mainly ozone, in
the air;
The weather conditions, e.g., solar radiation,
temperature, humidity and winds.
Soil Hg fluxes are significantly lower in dark

conditions than light conditions for all sites except
grassland [64].
It is most difficult to estimate Hg emissions from

plants, and these emissions mainly occur in the form
of Hg0 [78,79,80]. Ericksen et al. [81] suggested the
following hierarchy of environmental parameters that
influence Hg flux:
Soil moisture > light > air concentration > relative

humidity > temperature.
Table 5 shows a summary of total Hg (THg) fluxes
from terrestrial regions [38], and Table 6 shows the Download PDF
average fluxes (or, in some cases, the range of fluxes)

for various ecosystems measured by a number of
investigators.
Table 5 Summary of mercury fluxes from

terrestrial regions [38]
Table 6 Average fluxes, or in some cases the

range of fluxes, for various ecosystems
measured by a number of investigators
When analyzing the data in Table 6, the following

generalizations can be made [38, 82]:
i. The largest amounts of Hg are emitted from

tropical regions (45%), followed by the
temperate zones (41%), with the lowest
emissions from the polar regions (8%), and
emissions from volcanoes and geothermal areas
account for 5%;
ii. Areas with vegetation can be ranked according
to the size of their emissions as follows: forests
> other areas (tundra, savannas, and chaparral)
> agricultural areas > grassland ecosystems;
iii. Land areas devoid of vegetation emit more Hg
than do areas with plants.
Deforestation can increase GEM emissions due to

higher solar radiation and increased temperature at
the soil surface [83, 84].
Download PDF
The overall background soil Hg flux in the United
States is estimated to be 0.9 ± 0.2 ng/m2/h [78], and
in areas with significant Hg pollution, soil emissions
are much larger. In the canton of Valais, Switzerland,
elemental Hg (Hg0) is undetectable in soil, although
substantial Hg0 emissions were found to occur (20–
1392 ng m−2 h−1) [85].
Urban areas are of particular concern with respect to

the global Hg cycle due to the following [86]:
i. Frequently high terrestrial Hg concentrations

and the physically and chemically diverse nature
of urban surface covers;
ii. Highly variable time series concentrations of
ambient atmospheric Hg as a result of regional
and local emissions;
iii. Urban meteorology (i.e., heat island effect).
In the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA), Hg fluxes

on bare undisturbed soil surfaces were as follows
(median) [86]:
Residential site—4.45 ng.m−2 h−1;

Industrial site—1.40 ng.m−2 h−1;
Commercial site—2.14 ng.m−2 h−1;
Mixed land use site—0.87 ng.m−2 h−1.
Areas of land devoid of vegetation emit more Hg than

those with plants. The annual averaged fluxes in the
subtropical forest zones in China from soil in the
forests were 14.2 ng m−2h−1, and for open-air sites,
Download PDF
they were 20.7 ng m−2 h−1 [87]. Soil Hg fluxes were
significantly lower in dark conditions than in light
conditions. In grassland sites, the mean soil Hg flux
was 0.6 ± 0.9 ng m−2 h−1 in darkness, 1.0 ±
0.7 ng m−2 h−1 in light, and 0.9 ± 0.7 ng m−2 h−1
overall [64].
Cropland is an important component of terrestrial

ecosystems. It is estimated that 33% of natural-
source atmospheric Hg comes from the emissions at
cropland surfaces [88]. The emission of Hg from
cropland soil greatly affects the global Hg cycle.
Combinations of different crop cultivars and planting
densities will result in different light transmittance
under canopies, which directly affects the solar and
heat radiation flux received by the soil surface below
crops. In turn, this might lead to differences in the
soil–air total gaseous mercury (TGM) exchange
under different cropping patterns. The light
transmittance under the canopy was the key control
on soil–air TGM exchange fluxes. High light
transmittance can enhance soil TGM emission rates
and increase the magnitude of diurnal variations in
soil–air TGM exchange fluxes. The estimated annual
average soil–air TGM exchange flux was 5.46 ±
21.69 ng m−2 h−1 in corn–wheat rotation cropland
with 30 cm row spacing [89, 90].
The bidirectional exchange of Hg between the

atmosphere and terrestrial surfaces is better
understood because of advancements in research that
are primarily associated with the interpretation from
Hg isotopes, and the latest estimates place land
surface Hg re-emission at values lower than Download PDF
previously thought [91].
Methylmercury
High doses of organic compounds of Hg, particularly
methyl-Hg, can be fatal to humans and wildlife, and
even relatively low doses can seriously affect the
nervous system of organisms. Hg has also been linked
to harmful effects on the cardiovascular, immune and
reproductive systems. Methyl-Hg passes through
both the placenta and blood–brain barrier; therefore,
the exposure of women of child-bearing age and of
children to methylmercury is of great concern [1].
Methyl-Hg can be both biotically and abiotically

produced in the environment. Methylation of Hg
tends to occur in environments with low oxygen
levels, low pH, Hg bioavailability, temperature, redox
potential and high levels of dissolved organic
compounds and in environments favored by sulfate-
reducing bacteria, which are largely responsible for
methylation. These conditions are found primarily in
deep sea environments, coastal marine sediments,
and some freshwater lakes as well as soils. These
conditions are also characteristic for paddy soil [92,
93]. Organic Hg is much more toxic to living
organisms than inorganic Hg [4, 94, 95]. The content
of methyl-Hg in soils and plants is significantly lower
than that of THg; however, due to its much higher
toxicity, methyl-Hg is particularly dangerous for
living organisms. In soils in the coniferous boreal
forests of Sweden, the background level of pollution
from methyl-Hg accounted for 0.35–0.59% of THg
[96]. In the Idrija Hg mining area of Slovenia, a Download PDF
heavily polluted region, methyl-Hg accounted for

0.003% of THg, and its background presence in
controls was 0.17% [97]. The content of methyl-Hg
relative to THG was 1.9% in the roots of rice under
background conditions and 0.55% in the leaves; in
areas of Hg mining sites, the concentrations were
0.07% in the roots and 0.01% in the leaves; and in
areas with artisanal Hg mining sites, the
concentrations were 0.63% in the roots and 0.02% in
the leaves [98]. Methyl-Hg in heavily contaminated
soil in the Rhône Valley (Switzerland) accounted for
< 0.8% of THg [99].
A number of factors that control microbial activity

and/or the geochemical speciation of inorganic Hg2+
govern MeHg formation in the environment [100].
Microorganisms that live in soil can transform
inorganic Hg(II) species into Hg0 by using the enzyme
Hg reductase, which is found in various bacteria,
such as Pseudomonas sp., Staphylococcus aureus,
Thiobacillus and many others [101]. Increases in
temperature might lead to increases in biological
activity as well as higher Hg2+ methylation rates
[102].
The direct conversion of insoluble HgS species to

MeHg in anaerobic soils is generally believed to be
low, although this condition can change when
environmental conditions favor HgS complexation
[103]. The redox potential also seems to be a key
factor, as suboxic and mildly reducing conditions
seem to promote high Hg2+ methylation rates, while
anoxic and strongly reducing conditions might lead to Download PDF
elevated sulfide concentrations that eventually

prevent Hg2+ from being available for methylation of
some methylating bacteria, including SRB (sulfate-
reducing bacteria, e.g., Desulfobacter sp.), and some
that control the availability of Hg2+ for methylation
(e.g., Deltaproteobacteria or Clostridia) [104, 105].
S plays a major role in influencing Hg2+ methylation

by directly affecting the activity of some methylating
bacteria, such as SRB, and controlling the availability
of Hg2+ for methylation [106, 107].
The paddy soils in Hg mining areas have a high

methylation ability and may eventually result in
heavily biological effects on the local residents
through the food chains, such as rice containing high
methyl-Hg [108]. In the Wuchuan Hg mining areas
(Guizhou, China), soil samples present THg values
ranging from 0.33 to 320 mg kg−1 and methyl-Hg
values ranging from 0.69 to 20 ng g−1. The rice grain
samples contain elevated methyl-Hg concentrations
ranging from 4.2 to 18 ng g−1, while corn grain
contained only 0.5–2.0 ng g−1 [92]. Research carried
out in areas with coal-fired power plants in Hunan
(China) [109] shows that in the soil samples, THg
varied from 0.068 to 0.220 mg kg−1 (mean value of
0.130 ± 0040 mg kg−1), and methyl-Hg ranged from
0.30 to 3.5 μg kg−1 (mean 1.6 ± 1.0 μg kg−1). In rice
samples, the Hg(II) concentrations varied from 0.002
to 0.022 mg kg−1 (mean 0.057 mg kg−1), and methyl-
Hg concentrations varied from 1.7 to 3.8 ng gg−1
Download PDF
(mean of 2.4 ± 0.72 ng g−1). Meng et al. [98] showed
that rice had high affinity for methyl-Hg and that the
concentrations in rice seeds may be 2 to 3 orders of
magnitude higher in Hg mining sites than in other
local edible crop plants. Freshly deposited Hg is more
likely to methylate and be incorporated in rice than
stored Hg [91].
Forest fires cause a significant reduction in mercury

content in soil. Burned soils in northwestern Ontario
(Canada) had 82% less methyl-Hg than fresh soils
[110]. Current climate change has had a significant
impact on Hg transformation processes, especially in
the Arctic. The very large mass of mainly natural Hg
found in northern permafrost deposits, which is
projected to be released with further climate
warming, may profoundly affect biotic Hg levels
around the Northern Hemisphere, especially because
large amounts of organic carbon, which may
stimulate Hg methylation rates, will be
simultaneously released [111].
Mercury in soil
Mercury has a relatively long half-life in surface soils
because of its recycling between the surface
environment and atmosphere. Permanent removal of
anthropogenic Hg from the biologically active part of
the environment will only occur once it is buried in
mineral soils [4]. Soil plays an important role in
biogeochemical Hg circulation because it
accumulates this element and is a source for other
environmental components. Hg occurs naturally in
soils from geologic sources [12] or as the result of
natural events such as forest fires and volcanic Download PDF
eruptions [49]. The total amount worldwide of Hg

accumulated in the soils of terrestrial environments is
estimated at 200–300 Gg [112,113,114]. Smith-
Downey et al. [60] suggested that organically bound
Hg in preindustrial soils is 200 Gg and that a 20%
increase in organically bound soil Hg (to 240 Gg) has
occurred from preindustrial steady-state conditions
to the present day.
In the 2013 Technical Background Report for the

Global Mercury Assessment [4], based on a global
model and budget developed by Mason et al. [114],
human activities were estimated to cumulatively
increase atmospheric Hg concentrations by 300–
500% over the past century. Because of the naturally
high Hg amount present in soil, the average Hg
increase was only 20% in surface organic soil and
negligible in mineral soils. The revolatilization of
“legacy Hg” (i.e., Hg from historical sources of
pollution) from soil and ocean and its long residence
time in those compartments contribute to
maintaining atmospheric Hg concentrations and
deposition rates at higher levels than those supported
by current primary emissions [115]. Recent estimates
of the anthropogenic and natural Hg contents in
global soils (organic layers) (data in kilotons)
included 182 natural and 89 anthropogenic sources
based on Amos et al. [116] and 130 natural and 20
anthropogenic sources according to the AMAP/UN
Environment [4].
All results for Hg soil content, which are presented in
the next part of this publication, pertain to the topsoil Download PDF
layer. Generally, the average background

concentration of Hg in soil ranges from 0.03 to
0.1 mg kg−1, with an average value of 0.06 mg kg−1,
whereas Hg-contaminated sites often have soil
concentrations that are 2- to 4-orders of magnitude
higher [117, 118]. Kabata Pendias and Pendias [5]
defined a narrower range of 0.05–0.3 mg kg−1,
although some volcanic and organic soils, especially
in Canada, may contain higher values, and in the
vicinity of industrial emission sources, the values can
be extremely high. Obrist et al. [119] showed that a
dataset with more than 1900 randomly selected
sampling points across the western USA indicated
median Hg concentrations of 0.019 mg kg−1 and an
average value of 24 mg kg−1, with only 1% of soil
samples exceeding background values (e.g., >
0.10 mg kg−1).
The LUCAS Topsoil Survey of the European Union

organization collected over 23,000 topsoil samples
(upper 20 cm) from land in all European Union
countries (28) except for Croatia [120]. The average
for European topsoil Hg concentrations was
0.04 mg kg−1, with a range of 0–159 mg kg−1. Studies
have identified highly polluted, isolated sites, and the
larger historical and recent industrial and Hg mining
areas show elevated concentrations of Hg.
Historically, mining for gold and Hg led to high Hg
concentrations in these mining areas, which may
explain the high Hg concentrations in some samples
from Central Italy, Northwest England and Eastern
Slovakia. Moreover, the natural/background Hg level
was 0.08 mg/kg in Brazil [121], 0.05 mg/kg in India Download PDF
[122], 0.23 mg/kg in New Zealand [123], 0.11 mg/kg

in the Norwegian Arctic [124] and 0.4 mg/kg in Paris
[125]. Most soil Hg was found as soil matrix-bound
divalent Hg (HgII), whereas elemental Hg (Hg0) was
undetectable in soils [85, 99].
Table 7 presents examples of the concentrations of

Hg in the soils in the vicinity of industrial emission
sources according to different authors, The highest
Hg contents were found in soils near Hg mines:
Almaden in Spain, with 2000 years of mining and ore
processing (< 8889 mg kg−1) [126]; Idrija in Slovenia,
with 500 years of mining activity (< 2759 mg kg−1)
[97, 127]; and in Alaska (5326 mg kg−1) [125]. Chlor-
alkali plants are also an important source of
environmental Hg pollution. Bernaus et al. [128]
estimated that Hg levels in the soil around a chlor-
alkali plant in the Netherlands were as high as
1150 mg kg−1.
Table 7 Some examples of surface soil layer

contamination with mercury in regions of
important sources of emissions by various
authors
According to Richardson and Moore [129], in the

urban environment, the diversity of Hg content in
soils is relatively high because of the diversity of land
functions in towns. Urban soils were found to
accumulate higher concentrations and pools of Hg
than their rural montane counterparts across New Download PDF
York and southern New England, which highlights

the importance of soils in urban systems for
sequestering Hg and preventing its movement
towards riparian and aquatic ecosystems, where it
can bioaccumulate. Moreover, soil Hg concentrations
were poorly correlated with pH, loss-on-ignition, and
clay content. Instead, proximity to local industrial
and agricultural sources proved a significant
influence on Hg accumulation.
The lowest median results were determined for soils

in Changchun, China, at 0.018 mg kg−1, with a range
of 0.012–0.036 mg kg−1 [130] and in Oslo, Norway
(0.06 mg kg−1, with a range of 0.01–2.3 mg kg−1)
[131], while the highest concentrations were in
Palermo, Italy (median value of 1.85 mg kg−1, with a
range of 0.004–2.61 mg kg−1) [132], and Glasgow,
Scotland (1.2 mg kg−1, with a range of 0.312–
5.2 mg kg−1) [133]. Of note is the reduction of 270%
(median from 0.68 mg kg−1 to 0.37) in Hg pollution
from 1987 to 2009 for soils from Beijing, China [134].
In agricultural soils, pollution by Hg was relatively

low, as indicated by the low median and average
values at usually below 0.1 mg kg−1 (e.g., Scandinavia
—Ottesen et al. [135]; Poland—Loska et al. [136]; Iran
—Ahmadi et al. [137]). However, the ranges of the
results were relatively wide, and the maximum values
often exceeded 1 mg kg−1, which may indicate a
threat to food production due to the need to protect
human health in some areas with higher Hg soil
levels. In Europe, pastures were slightly more Download PDF
polluted with Hg than plowed fields [136]. Soils in

forest environments contained low levels of Hg.
Average and median values did not exceed 1 mg kg−1,
although compared with agricultural soils, the
maximum values were also lower than 1 mg kg−1.
Mineral forest soils contained less Hg than organic
ones (USA—Woodruff and Cannon, [54] Czech
Republic—Navrátil et al. [138]; Sweden—Åkerblom et
al. [139]. According to Obrist et al. [119], soil Hg
concentrations significantly differed among land
covers following the order:
Forested upland > planted/cultivated > herbaceous
upland/shrubland > barren soils.
Concentrations in forests were an average of 2.5

times higher than those in barren locations.
The global distributions of soil Hg storage and

emissions for both preindustrial and present-day
simulations in different biomes are shown in Table 4
[60]. The relatively low soil Hg concentrations in
boreal and arctic ecosystems are driven by extremely
low deposition. The high soil concentrations in desert
ecosystems are driven by a combination of higher
deposition and extremely slow Hg turnover. The
concentration of Hg in soils is therefore a function of
the deposition rate and carbon turnover time.
Physical and chemical properties of the soil affect the

Hg cycle in the environment. The soil aggregate size
fractions have significant effects on the Hg content in
soil. The concentrations of Hg and other heavy metals Download PDF
in soils and sediments generally tend to increase with

decreasing grain size, which is due to the propensity
of metals to bind with finer particles [140]. Generally,
higher values of Hg in soil are found in the fraction at
< 63 µm [141]. In the Amazonian areas without
anthropogenic sources, the fine fraction (< 53 μm) of
podzolized soils had higher Hg contents than clayey
soils [142]. In a temperate forest podzol, Hg mean
values increased as the aggregate sizes decrease, as
follows:
Clay (170 ng g−1) > fine silt (130 ng g−1) > coarse silt

(80 ng g−1) > fine sand (32 ng g−1) > coarse sand
(14 ng g−1).
Total Hg enrichment in clay-sized aggregates were 2

to 11 times higher than the values shown by the bulk
soil (< 2 mm) [143]. In a heavily polluted area near
the Wanshan Hg mine (China), the fine soil aggregate
size fractions < 231 μm showed higher total Hg
concentrations and higher soil organic matter content
than did the larger aggregate size fractions (231 to
2000 μm) [144].
Humic acid influences Hg transport and

transformation in soil–plant systems, especially for
soils having low clay content. Humic acid reduces the
amount of available Hg in soil and prevents Hg from
being transported into plants or leached from the
soil. Leaching can result in Hg leaking into natural
water systems under normal environmental
conditions. In practice, humic acid can be used to
control Hg transportation into food chains from soil Download PDF
heavily polluted by Hg [145].
The chemical and mineralogical properties of soil

affect oxidation and retention of atmospheric Hg.
Abiotic Hg oxidation occurs because organic matter
has -SH groups, which have a high affinity for Hg
ions, and Hg oxidation is favored in the presence of
compounds with high affinities for the Hg ion [121]. A
microbial contribution to Hg oxidation was first
proposed by Smith et al. [146], who demonstrated
that typical soil bacteria (Bacillus and Streptomyces)
can oxidize elemental Hg to Hg2+ through enzymatic
paths. Recent studies have shown that Hg can also be
oxidized by anaerobic bacteria [147, 148]. The soil
microbial community is very sensitive to Hg
concentrations, and this sensitivity is influenced not
only by soil properties, but also by the plant species
growing in the soil. A level of 0.36.mg kg−1 of Hg in
soils is proposed to be a critical concentration above
which plant and soil organisms will be affected [121].
Mercury in plants
Vegetation affects environmental factors at the
ground surface by reducing solar radiation,
temperature, and wind velocity and serves as a
surface for Hg uptake [84]. Many studies have
recognized the essential role of terrestrial plants in
the biogeochemical cycling of Hg (e.g., Gustin et al.
[149]; Fantozzi et al. [150]; Mazur et al. [151]).
Approximately 80% of total Hg accumulated in the
aboveground biomass is found in the leaves, and Download PDF
approximately 1% of that Hg is methylated. The

concentrations of Hg in aspen tissue grown in high-
Hg soil increases in the following order [152]:
Stems < branches < petioles < roots < leaves.
Research conducted by Leonard et al. [153] in Nevada

(USA) in an area with high levels of Hg
contamination revealed that for the plant species
Lepidium latifolium, 70% of the Hg taken up by the
roots during the growing season was emitted to the
atmosphere.
The main source of Hg in leaves comes from air

pollution with Hg0 and not from soil contamination
[149, 154, 155]. The studies by Fleck et al. [156] of
Pinus resinosa have shown that neither woody tissue
Hg nor any amount of Hg in the soil or forest floor
were closely related to foliar levels, while for some
relationships, the opposite was true. The authors
interpret these data as indicating that Hg in plant
tissues is derived directly from the atmosphere and
not from the soil. It is estimated that in highly
contaminated soils, generally less than 2% of the Hg
present is available for plants [157]. Total leaf
concentrations of Hg varied among species and were
most closely correlated with the number of stomates
per sample, thus supporting the hypothesis that
stomatal uptake of atmospheric Hg (most likely Hg0)
is a potential uptake pathway [158]. Research by
Arnold et al. [159] also indicated the importance of
the nonstomatal pathway for the uptake of total
gaseous Hg (TGM). Download PDF
Plants growing beyond the influence of high Hg

emissions contained less than 100 ng g−1 THg. Plants
growing in the vicinity of factories are large emitters
of Hg, such as those around Hg mining sites (e.g.,
Moreno-Imenez et al. [160]; Qian et al. [161]) and
chlor-alkali mining sites [162]. Au mining sites [163,
164] may also contain extremely high Hg contents.
Mushrooms have been identified as organisms that
accumulate more Hg than other plants [165]. A
synthesis of published vegetation Hg data from the
western United States showed that aboveground
biomass concentrations followed the order [119]:
Leaves (26 μg kg−1) ~ branches (26 μg kg−1) > bark

(16 μg kg−1) > bole wood (1 μg kg−1).
Hg concentrations in leaves were monitored from the

emergence to senescence and showed a strong
positive correlation with leaf age [155, 158, 166].
Toxic effects on plants

Hg does not have any beneficial effects on organisms
and is thus regarded as the “main threat” since it is
very harmful to both plants and animals; pollutes the
air, water and soil; and is toxic [167]. Mercury has
toxic effects on plants, even at low concentrations,
and leads to growth retardation [168] and many other
adverse effects [105].
Hg in plants is strongly bound to sulfhydryl/thiol
groups of proteins and forms SHgS. Hg toxicity in Download PDF
plants occurs via its binding to SH groups of proteins,

displacement of essential elements and disruption of
the protein structure [169]. This biochemical
property probably determines the toxic effects on
plants [5, 170, 171]. Studies of the toxic effects of Hg
on soil organisms and native plants in fields are
limited. The effects of Hg are usually examined in
sterile and much-simplified laboratory conditions,
which may differ from field conditions to varying
degrees [172].
The field study of Moreno-Jiménez et al. [160] was

conducted in the mining district of Almadén (Spain),
which is a cinnabar (HgS) enriched zone, from which
one-third of the total Hg produced worldwide is
extracted. Mining activity began more than
2000 years ago, and no other region in the world has
been influenced by Hg for such a long period. The
region is considered to be one of the regions most
polluted by Hg in the world. Hg concentrations in the
field plants Rumex induratus and Marrubium
vulgare grown in these soils can be considered
phytotoxic, although no symptoms of Hg toxicity
have been observed in any of the studied plant
species. In most contaminated soils and mine
tailings, Hg is not readily available for plant uptake
[173].
The absorption of organic and inorganic Hg from soil

by plants is low, and there is a barrier to Hg
translocation from plant roots to tops. Thus, large
increases in soil Hg levels produce only modest
increases in plant Hg levels by direct uptake from soil Download PDF
[172]. In terrestrial vegetation, Hg in the

aboveground biomass originates primarily from the
atmosphere, whereas Hg in the roots comes from the
soil [67, 174]. The research conducted by Lomonte et
al. [175] suggested the existence of Hg stress-
activated defense mechanisms in plants and
hypothesized that these mechanisms were likely the
reason for the increased production of sulfur
compounds in the tested plant species, which
stimulated their growth. Hg has very limited
solubility in soil, low availability for plant uptake and
no known biological function, which may explain why
Hg-hyperaccumulating plants have not yet been
identified, meaning that a method for Hg
phytoremediation in soils contaminated with Hg has
not yet been developed [175]. However, studies
suggesting the use of transgenic plants for
phytoremediation have been published recently [176,
177].
The significant toxic effect of Hg on plants is the

generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [178],
e.g., superoxide anion radicals, H2O2, and hydroxyl
radicals (OH.) [179, 180]. Detoxification mechanisms
to combat Hg-induced oxidative stress include
enzymatic antioxidants and some nonenzymatic
antioxidants, such as the following: glutathione [181],
phytochelatin [182], salicylic acids [183], ascorbic
acid [184], selenium, [185], proline [186] and
tocopherols [187]. This process is correlated with the
disruption of biomembrane lipids and cellular
metabolism, resulting in plant injury [188]. Download PDF
Increasing levels of mercury species in the soil exert a

wide range of adverse effects on the growth and
metabolism of plants [167, 189, 190], such as reduced
photosynthesis, transpiration, water uptake,
chlorophyll synthesis [188, 191, 192] and increased
lipid peroxidation (Cho and Park [179]). A high Hg
content in plants affects the activity of most enzymes.
The total activity of stress indicators such as
superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and
ascorbate peroxides (APX) increased after Hg
treatment, but the vast majority of enzymes were
inhibited at higher concentrations (e.g., Manikandan
et al. [193]; Mahbub et al. [194]; Zhou et al. [195]).
Conclusions and commentary
Atmospheric contamination by mercury continues to

be one of the most important environmental
problems in the modern world. The following general
conclusions can be drawn from this review of the
literature and are accompanied by the authors’
critical commentary:
Models differ significantly in their estimations of

global total Hg emissions—from 4000 to
9230 Mg year−1—of which natural emissions
and re-emissions ranged from 45 to 66%.
Many factors contribute to such large
differences in the assessments of the level of
global emissions: (i) methodological difficulties
exist in assessing re-emission from heavily
polluted areas under the influence of Download PDF
contemporary and historical emissions and

areas with background pollution; (ii) the
transformation of various forms of Hg depends
on many difficult to evaluate processes, which
makes estimating emissions difficult; and (iii)
unusual phenomena associated with the
transformation of various Hg forms (e.g.,
mercury depletion events (MDEs), which consist
of episodes of sudden drops in total gaseous
mercury concentrations in the air in the
Antarctic and Arctic, can occur.
Despite the many applicable global, regional and
national programs and conventions aimed at
reducing Hg emissions, global total Hg
emissions in the years 2000–2015 increased by
1.8%. In many countries, including those with a
high national income, there is a lack of
understanding by society at large and politicians
about the need to reduce emissions.
The proportions between the amounts of natural
emissions and anthropogenic emissions have
not been precisely determined. This ratio, which
is dependent on the authors, has been estimated
over a relatively wide range of 0.8–1.8.
Annual global Hg emissions from natural
sources on land are estimated by various
authors over a wide range, with total emissions
of 1600–2500 Mg year−1, including re-
emissions of 790–2000 Mg year−1. The low
share of Hg taken up by plants from the soil is
beneficial from perspective of protecting food
against contamination, although it also limits
the possibility of using plants in the Download PDF
phytoremediation of contaminated soils.

On the land surface, Hg deposition is mainly in
the oxidized form (Hg2+), and its
transformations are associated primarily with
the oxidation–reduction potential of the
environment and the biological and chemical
processes of methylation.
The main source of Hg in plant leaves comes
from air pollution with Hg0 and not from soil
contamination. It is very difficult to estimate Hg
emissions from plants, which mainly occur in
the form of Hg0.
Methyl-Hg can be produced both biotically and
abiotically in the environment. Methylation of
Hg tends to occur in environments with low
oxygen levels, low pH, Hg bioavailability,
temperature, redox potential and high dissolved
organic compound levels, and environments
favored by SRB are largely responsible for this
methylation.
Rice growing conditions mean that the Hg
methylation process is extremely intensive.
Consequently, rice may contain significantly
more Hg than other crops, which is particularly
dangerous because rice in many regions of the
world is the basis for feeding the population.
Hg has very limited solubility in soil and low
availability for plant uptake, and it does not have
any known biological function. These factors
may explain why Hg-hyperaccumulating plants
have not yet been identified, meaning that an
effective phytoremediation methods for soil
contaminated with Hg has not yet been Download PDF
developed, which may explain why Hg

hyperaccumulator plants have not found
practical use in phytoremediation of
contaminated soils. Such work may be more
applicable in wetland environments. The
possibility of using contaminated soil in
phytoremediation by transgenic plants is
promising and a future research direction.
A large number of scientific publications have
been devoted to the problem of Hg
environmental pollution. However, these studies
face many difficulties: (i) analytical difficulties
exist, which are caused by very low Hg contents
in all elements of the environment; (ii) the need
to determine a specific form of Hg prohibits
providing results in total Hg; and (iii) the form
in which Hg occurs depends on many
environmental factors that must be accurately
recognized and described. Unfortunately, many
scientific publications do not meet these
requirements.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable; presented information is based on

previously published data only.
Abbreviations
Hg:
Mercury
UN:
United Nations Download PDF
UNEP:
United Nations Environment Programme
GEM:
Gaseous elemental mercury Hg0
GOM:
Gaseous mercury in oxidized form
TPM:
Total particulate mercury
TGM:
Total gaseous Hg
ROS:
Reactive oxygen species
OH:
Hydroxyl radicals
SOD:
Superoxide dismutase
POD:
Peroxidase
APX:
Ascorbate peroxides
References
1. Pacyna JM (2020) Recent advances in mercury
Download PDF
research. Sci Total Environ 738:139955.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139955
2. Environment UN (2019) Global mercury

assessment 2018. UN Environment Programme,
Chemical and Health Branch Geneva, Switzerland
3. Bank MS (2020) The mercury science-policy

interface: history, evolution and progress of the
Minamata Convention. Sci Total Environ
722:137832.
4. AMAP, UN Environment (2019) Technical

background report for the global mercury
assessment 2018. Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway/UN
Environment Programme, Chemicals and Health
Branch, Geneva, Switzerland
5. Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H (2001) Trace

elements in soils and plants, 3rd edn. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420039900
6. Newman MC (2014) Fundamentals of

ecotoxicology: the science of pollution, 4th edn.
CRC Press, Boca Raton.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b17658
7. Hylander LD, Meili M (2003) 500 years of
mercury production: global annual inventory by Download PDF
region until 2000 and associated emissions. Sci

Total Environ 304:13–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00553-3
8. WHO (2017) Ten chemicals of major health

concern.
http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_hea
lth/chemicals_phc/en/index.html
9. Minamata Convention on Mercury. (2020).

http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/d
ocuments/conventionText/Minamata
10. Selin H, Keane SE, Wang S, Selin NE, Davis K,

Bally D (2018) Linking science and policy to
support the implementation of the Minamata
Convention on Mercury. Ambio 47:198–215.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1003-x
11. Streets DG, Horowitz HM, Lu Z, Levin L,

Thackray CP, Sunderland EM (2019) Global and
regional trends in mercury emissions and
concentrations. 2010–2015. Atmos Environ
201:417–427.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.031
12. Obrist D, Kirk JL, Zhang L, Sunderland EM,

Jiskra M, Selin NE (2018) A review of global
environmental mercury processes in response to
human and natural perturbations: changes of
emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 47:116–
140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1004- Download PDF
13. ICMGP 2019) 14th international conference on

mercury as a global pollutant, 8–13 September
2019 Cracow, Poland.
http://www.mercury2019krakow.com
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C,

Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The
PRISMA statement for reporting systematic
reviews and meta-analyses of studies that
evaluate health care interventions: explanation
and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
15. Pirrone N, Cinnirella S, Feng X, Finkelman RB,

Friedli HR, Leaner J et al (2010) Global mercury
emissions to the atmosphere from
anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmos Chem
and Phys 10:5951–5964.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5951-2010
16. Pacyna EG, Pacyna JM, Sundsetha K, Munthec

J, Kindbomc K, Wilsond S et al (2010) Global
emission of mercury to the atmosphere from
anthropogenic sources in 2005 and projections
to 2020. Atmos Environ 44:2487–2499.
9
17. Gworek B, Dmuchowski W, Baczewska AH,
Brągoszewska P, Bemowska-Kałabun O, Download PDF
Wrzosek-Jakubowska J (2017) Air

contamination by mercury, emissions and
transformations—a review. Water Air Soil Poll
228:123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-
3311-y
18. UNEP Chemical Branch (2008) The global

atmospheric mercury assessment: sources,
emissions and transport. UNEP-Chemicals,
Geneva
19. Cooke CA, Martínez-Cortizas A, Bindler R,

Gustin MS (2020) Environmental archives of
atmospheric Hg deposition—a review. Sci Total
Environ 709:134800.
20. Miszczak E, Stefaniak S, Michczyński A,

Steinnes E, Twardowska I (2020) A novel
approach to peatlands as archives of total
cumulative spatial pollution loads from
atmospheric deposition of airborne elements
complementary to EMEP data: priority
pollutants (Pb, Cd, Hg). Sci Total Environ
705:135776.
21. Zhu C, Tian H, Hao J (2020) Global

anthropogenic atmospheric emission inventory
of twelve typical hazardous trace elements,
1995–2012. Atmos Environ 220:117061.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117061 Download PDF
22. Eckley C, Blanchard P, McLennan D, Mintz R,

Sekela M (2015) Soil–air mercury flux near a
large industrial emission source before and after
closure (Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada). Environ
Sci Techno 49:9750–9757.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01995
23. Eckley CS, Gilmour CC, Janssen S, Luxton TP,

Randall PM, Whalin L et al (2020) The
assessment and remediation of mercury
contaminated sites: a review of current
approaches. Sci Total Environ 707:136031.
24. Agnan Y, Le Dantec T, Moore CW, Edwards GC,

Obrist D (2016) New constraints on terrestrial
surface–atmosphere fluxes of gaseous elemental
mercury using a global database. Environ Sci
Technol 50:507–524.
25. Travnikov O, Dastoor A, Bullock R, Christensen

JH (2008) Modeling atmospheric transport and
deposition. In: AMAP/UNEP, technical
background report to the global atmospheric
mercury assessment. Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme, UNEP Chemical
Branch, pp 79–107
26. Dastoor AP, Larocque Y (2004) Global
circulation of atmospheric mercury: a modelling Download PDF
study. Atmos Environ 38:147–161.

7
27. Henze DK, Hakami A, Seinfeld JH (2007)

Development of the adjoint of GEOS-Chem.
Atmos Chem Phys 79:2413–2433.
https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:
HENacp07
28. Seigneur C, Vijayaraghavan K, Lohman K, Levin

L (2009) The AER/EPRI global chemical
transport model for mercury (CTM-HG). In:
Pirrone N, Mason R (eds) Mercury fate and
transports in the global atmosphere. Springer,
New York, pp 589–602
29. Travnikov O, Ilyin I (2009) The EMEP/MSC-E

mercury modeling system. In: Pirrone N, Mason
R (eds) Mercury fate and transports in the
global atmosphere. Springer, New York, pp 571–
587. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93958-
2_20
30. Travnikov O, Angot H, Artaxo P, Bencardino M,
Bieser J, D’Amore F et al (2017) Multi-model Download PDF
study of mercury dispersion in the atmosphere:

atmospheric processes and model evaluation.
Atmos Chem Phys.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5271-201
31. De Simone F, Gencarelli CN, Hedgecock IM,

Pirrone N (2014) Global atmospheric cycle of
mercury: a model study on the impact of
oxidation mechanisms. Environ Sci Pollut R
21:4110–4123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
013-2451-x
32. Nriagu JO, Pacyna JM (1998) Quantitative

assessment of worldwide contamination of air,
water and soils by trace metals. Nature
333:134–139.
https://doi.org/10.1038/333134a0
33. Shetty SK, Lin CJ, Streets DG, Jang C (2008)

Model estimate of mercury emission from
natural sources in East Asia. Atmos Environ
42:8674–8685.
6
34. Liu G, Cai Y, O’Driscoll N, Feng X, Jiang G

(2012) Overview of mercury in the environment.
In: Liu G, Cai Y, O’Driscoll N (eds)
Environmental chemistry and toxicology of
mercury. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–12
Download PDF
35. Gustin MS, Lindberg SE, Austin K, Coolbaugh
M, Vette A, Zhang H (2000) Assessing the
contribution of natural sources to regional
atmospheric mercury budgets. Sci Total Environ
259:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
9697(00)00556-8
36. Gustin MS, Lindberg SE, Weisberg PJ (2008)

An update on the natural sources and sinks of
atmospheric mercury. Appl Geoch 23:482–493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.12.0
10
37. Streets DG, Horowitz HM, Jacob DJ, Lu Z, Levin

L, Ter Schure AF et al (2017) Total mercury
released to the environment by human activities.
Environ Sci Technol 51:5969–5977.
38. Mason RP (2009) Mercury emissions from

natural processes and their importance in the
global mercury cycle. In: Pirrone N, Mason R
(eds) Mercury fate and transports in the global
atmosphere. Springer, New York, pp 173–191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93958-2_7
39. Wang Y, Greger M (2004) Clonal differences in

mercury tolerance, accumulation, and
distribution in willow. J Environ Qual 33:1779–
1785. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.1779
40. Bergan T, Gallardo L, Rohde H (1999) Mercury
in the global troposphere—a three-dimensional Download PDF
model study. Atmos Environ 33:1575–1585.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00370-
7
41. Mason RP, Sheu GR (2002) Role of the ocean in

the global mercury cycle. Global Biogeoch Cy
16:1093.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001440
42. Lamborg CH, Fitzgerald WF, O’Donnell J,

Torgersen T (2002) A non-steady-state
compartmental model of global-scale mercury
biogeochemistry with interhemispheric
atmospheric gradients. Geochim Cosmochim Ac
66:1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-
7037(01)00841-9
43. Nriagu J, Becker C (2003) Volcanic emissions of

mercury to the atmosphere: global and regional
inventories. Sci Total Environ 304:3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-
9697(02)00552-1
44. Pyle DM, Macher RA (2003) The importance of

volcanic emissions for the global atmospheric
mercury cycle. Atmos Environ 37:5115–5124.
1
45. Bagnato E, Aiuppa A, Parello F, Allard P,
Shinohara H, Liuzzo M et al (2011) New clues on Download PDF
the contribution of Earth’s volcanism to the

global mercury cycle. B Volcanol 73:497–510.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-010-0419-y
46. Bagnato E, Aiuppa A, Parello F, Calabrese S,

D’Alessandro W, Mather TA et al (2007)
Degassing of gaseous (elemental and reactive)
and particulate mercury from Mount Etna
volcano (Southern Italy). Atmos Environ
41:377–7388.
0
47. Witt MLI, Mather TA, Pyle DM, Aiuppa A,

Bagnato E, Tsanev VI (2008) Mercury and
halogen emissions from Masaya and Telica
volcanoes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth,
Nicaragua.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005401
48. Martin RS, Witt MLI, Pyle DM, Mather TA,

Watt SFL, Bagnato E et al (2011) Rapid
oxidation of mercury (Hg) at volcanic vents:
insights from high temperature thermodynamic
models of Mt Etna’s emissions. Chem Geol
283:279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.01.027
49. Ermolin MS, Fedotov PS, Malik NA,

Karandashev VK (2018) Nanoparticles of
volcanic ash as a carrier for toxic elements on
the global scale. Chemosphere 200:16–22. Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02
.089
50. Coolbaugh M, Gustin M, Rytuba J (2002)

Annual emissions of mercury to the atmosphere
from natural sources in Nevada and California.
Environ Geol 42:338–349.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-002-0557-4
51. Cinnirella S, Pirrone N (2006) Spatial and

temporal distributions of mercury emissions
from forest fires in Mediterranean region and
Russian federation. Atmos Environ 40:7346–
7361.
1
52. Friedli HR, Arellano AF, Cinnirella S, Pirrone N

(2009) Mercury emissions from global biomass
burning: spatial and temporal distribution. In:
Mason R, Pirrone N (eds) Mercury fate and
transport in the global atmosphere. Springer,
Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-
93958-2_8
53. Obrist D, Gustin MS, Arnone JA III, Johnson

DW, Schorran DE, Verburg PS (2005)
Measurements of gaseous elemental mercury
fluxes over intact tallgrass prairie monoliths
during one full year. Atmos Environ 39:957–
965.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.09.08 Download PDF
54. Woodruff LG, Cannon WF (2010) Immediate

and long-term fire effects on total mercury in
forests soils of northeastern Minnesota. Environ
Sci Technol 44:5371–5376.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es100544d
55. Gagliano AL, Calabrese S, Daskalopoulou K,

Cabassi J, Capecchiacci F, Tassi F et al (2019)
Degassing and cycling of mercury at nisyros
volcano (Greece). Geofluids.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4783514
56. Pierce AM, Moore CW, Wohlfahrt G, Hörtnagl

L, Kljun N, Obrist D (2015) Eddy covariance flux
measurements of gaseous elemental mercury
using cavity ring-down spectroscopy. Environ
https://doi.org/10.1021/es505080z
57. Obrist D, Johnson DW, Lindberg SE (2009)

Mercury concentrations and pools in four Sierra
Nevada forest sites, and relationships to organic
carbon and nitrogen. Biogeosciences 6:765–777.
1
58. Jiskra M, Sonke JE, Obrist D, Bieser J,
Ebinghaus R, Myhre CL et al (2018) A Download PDF
vegetation control on seasonal variations in

global atmospheric mercury concentrations. Nat
Geosci 11:244–250.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0078-8
59. Gustin MS (2012) Exchange of mercury between

the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems. In:
Liu G, Cai Y, O’Driscoll N (eds) Environmental
chemistry and toxicology of mercury. Wiley,
Hoboken, pp 423–451
60. Smith-Downey NV, Sunderland EM, Jacob DJ

(2010) Anthropogenic impacts on global storage
and emissions of mercury from terrestrial soils:
insights from a new global model. Biogeosci, J
Geophys Res.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001124
61. Graydon JA, St. Louis VL, Lindberg SE,

Sandilands KA, Rudd JW, Kelly CA et al (2012)
The role of terrestrial vegetation in atmospheric
Hg deposition: pools and fluxes of spike and
ambient Hg from the METAALICUS experiment.
Global Biogeochem Cy 26:GB1022.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GB004031
62. Zheng W, Obrist D, Weis D, Bergquist BA

(2016) Mercury isotope compositions across
North American forests. Global Biogeoch Cy
30:1475–1492.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005323 Download PDF
63. Sommar J, Osterwalder S, Zhu W (2020) Recent

advances in understanding and measurement of
Hg in the environment: surface-atmosphere
exchange of gaseous elemental mercury (Hg0).
Sci Total Environ.
8
64. Wright LP, Zhang L, Marsik FJ (2016) Overview

of mercury dry deposition, litterfall, and
throughfall studies. Atmos Chem Phys 16:13399.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-13399-201
65. Lyman SN, Cheng I, Gratz LE, Weiss-Penzias P,

Zhang L (2020) An updated review of
atmospheric mercury. Sci Total Environ
707:135575.
66. Skov H, Bullock R, Christensen JH, Sørensen LL

(2008). Atmospheric pathways. In:
AMAP/UNEP, technical background report to
the global atmospheric mercury assessment.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme,
UNEP Chemical Branch, pp 64–72
67. Selin NE, Jacob DJ, Park RJ, Yantosca RM,

Strode S, Jaeglé L et al (2007) Chemical cycling
and deposition of atmospheric mercury: global
constraints from observations. J Geophys Res Download PDF
112:D02308.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007450
68. Lindberg SE, Dong W, Meyers T (2002)

Transpiration of gaseous elemental mercury
through vegetation in a subtropical wetland in
Florida. Atmos Environ 36:5207–5219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00586-
1
69. Marsik FJ, Keeler GJ, Landis MS (2007) The

dry-deposition of speciated mercury to the
Florida Everglades: measurements and
modeling. Atmos Environ 41:136–149.
2
70. Hanson PJ, Lindberg SE, Tabberer TA, Owens

JA, Kim KH (1995) Foliar exchange of mercury
vapor: evidence for a compensation point.
Water Air Soil Poll 80:373–382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01189687
71. Caffrey PF, Ondov JM, Zufall MJ, Davidson CI

(1998) Determination of size-dependent dry
particle deposition velocities with multiple
intrinsic elemental tracers. Environ Sci Technol
32:1615–1622.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es970644f
72. Converse AD, Riscassi AL, Scanlon TM (2010)
Seasonal variability in gaseous mercury fluxes Download PDF
measured in a high-elevation meadow. Atmos

Environ 44:2176–2185.
4
73. Carpi A, Fostier AH, Orta OR, dos Santos JC,

Gittings M (2014) Gaseous mercury Carp
emissions from soil following forest loss and
land use changes: field experiments in the
United States and Brazil. Atmos Environ
96:423–429.
4
74. Zhang H, Lindberg SE, Marsik FJ, Keeler GJ

(2001) Mercury air/surface exchange kinetics of
background soils of the Tahquamenon River
watershed in the Michigan Upper Peninsula.
Water Air Soil Poll 126:151–169
75. Ferrari CP, Dommerguea A, Veysseyrea A,

Planchona F, Boutrona CF (2002) Mercury
speciation in the French seasonal snow cover.
Sci Total Environ 287:61–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00999-
8
76. Gustin MS, Biester H, Kim CS (2002)

Investigation of the light-enhanced emission of
mercury from naturally enriched substrates.
Atmos Environ 36:3241–3254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00329- Download PDF
77. Poissant L, Pilote M, Xu X, Zhang H, Beauvais C

(2004) Atmospheric mercury speciation and
deposition in the Bay St. Francois wetlands. J
Geophys Res 109:1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004364
78. Gustin MS (2003) Are mercury emissions from

geologic sources significant? A status report. Sci
Total Environ. 304:153–167.
9697(02)00565-X
79. Gustin MS, Lindberg SE (2005) Terrestial Hg

Fluxes: is the next exchange up, down, or
neither? In: Pirrone N, Mahaffey KR (eds)
Dynamics of mercury pollution on regional and
global scales. Springer, Boston, pp 241–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24494-8_11
80. Stamenkovic J, Gustin MS (2007) Evaluation of

use of EcoCELL technology for quantifying total
gaseous mercury fluxes over background
substrates. Atmos Environ 41:3702–3712.
7
81. Ericksen JA, Gustin MS, Xin M, Weisberg PJ,
Fernandez GCJ (2006) Air–soil exchange of Download PDF
mercury from background soils in the United

States. Sci Total Environ 366:851–863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.019
82. Mason RP, Pirrone N, Hedgecock I, Suzuki N,

Levin L (2010) Conceptual overview. In: Pirrone
N, Keating T (eds) Hemispheric transport of air
pollution—part B. United Nations Publication,
New York, pp 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.18356/38ccc958-en
83. Carpi A, Lindberg SE (1997) Sunlight-mediated

emission of elemental mercury from soil
amended with municipal sewage sludge.
https://doi.org/10.1021/Es960910+
84. Zhu W, Lin CJ, Wang X, Sommar J, Fu X, Feng

X (2016) Global observations and modeling of
atmosphere-surface exchange of elemental
mercury: a critical review. Atmos Chem Phys
16:4451–4480. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-
4451-2016
85. Osterwalder S, Huang JH, Shetaya WH, Agnan

Y, Frossard A, Frey B et al (2019) Mercury
emission from industrially contaminated soils in
relation to chemical, microbial, and
meteorological factors. Environ Pollut 250:944–
952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.093 Download PDF
86. Gabriel MC, Williamson DG, Brooks S, Zhang

H, Lindberg S (2005) Spatial variability of
mercury emissions from soils in a southeastern
US urban environment. Environ Geol 48:955–
964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-
0043-x
87. Ma M, Wang D, Sun R, Shen Y, Huang L (2013)

Gaseous mercury emissions from subtropical
forested and open field soils in a national nature
reserve, southwest. China Atmos Environ
64:116–123.
8
88. Wang X, Lin CJ, Yuan W, Sommar J, Zhu W,

Feng X (2016) Emission-dominated gas
exchange of elemental mercury vapor over
natural surfaces in China. Atmos Chem Phys
16:11125–11143. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-
16-11125-2016
89. Sommar J, Zhu W, Shang L, Lin CJ, Feng XB

(2015) Seasonal variations in metallic mercury
(Hg 0) vapor exchange over biannual wheat-
corn rotation cropland in the North China Plain.
Biogeosci Discuss 12:16105–16158.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-12-16105-2015
90. Gao Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Wang C (2020)
Observation and estimation of mercury Download PDF
exchange fluxes from soil under different crop

cultivars and planting densities in North China
Plain. Environ Pollut 259:113833.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113833
91. Bishop K, Shanley JB, Riscassi A, de Wit HA,

Eklöf K, Meng B et al (2020) Recent advances in
understanding and measurement of mercury in
the environment: terrestrial Hg cycling. Sci Total
Environ 721:137647.
92. Qiu G, Feng X, Wang S, Shang L (2006)

Environmental contamination of mercury from
Hg-mining areas in Wuchuan, northeastern
Guizhou, China. Environ Pollut 142:549–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.10.015
93. Li Q, Tang L, Qiu G, Liu C (2020) Total mercury

and methylmercury in the soil and vegetation of
a riparian zone along a mercury-impacted
reservoir. Sci Total Environ 738:139794.
4
94. Goulet RR, Holmes J, Tessier A, Wang F,

Siciliano SD, Page B et al (2007) Mercury
methylation in sediments of a riverine marsh:
the role of redox conditions sulfur chemistry
and microbial communities. Geochim
Cosmochim Ac. 71:3396–3406 Download PDF
95. Windham-Myers L, Marvin-DiPasquale M,

Kakouros E, Agee JL, Kieu LH, Stricker CA et al
(2014) Mercury cycling in agricultural and
managed wetlands of California, USA: seasonal
influences of vegetation on mercury
methylation, storage, and transport. Sci Total
Environ 484:308–318.
96. Kronberg RM, Jiskra M, Wiederhold JG, Bjorn

E, Skyllberg U (2016) Methyl mercury formation
in hillslope soils of boreal forests: the role of
forest harvest and anaerobic microbes. Environ
97. Gnamuš A, Byrne AR, Horvat M (2000)

Mercury in the soil-plant-deer-predator food
chain of a temperate forest in Slovenia. Environ
https://doi.org/10.1021/es991419w
98. Meng B, Feng X, Qiu G, Cai Y, Wang D, Li P et al

(2010) Distribution patterns of inorganic
mercury and methylmercury in tissues of rice
(Oryza sativa L.) plants and possible
bioaccumulation pathways. J Agr Food Chem
58:4951–4958.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf904557x
Download PDF
99. Gilli R, Karlen C, Weber M, Rüegg J, Barmettler
K, Biester H et al (2018) Speciation and mobility
of mercury in soils contaminated by legacy
emissions from a chemical factory in the Rhône
valley in canton of Valais. Switzerland. Soil
Systems 2:44.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems2030044
100. Lima FRD, Martins GC, Silva AO, Vasques

ICF, Engelhardt MM, Cândido GS et al (2019)
Critical mercury concentration in tropical
soils: impact on plants and soil biological
attributes. Sci Total Environ 666:472–479.
6
101. Gonzalez-Raymat H, Liu G, Liriano C, Li Y, Yin

Y, Shi J et al (2017) Elemental mercury: its
unique properties affect its behavior and fate in
the environment. Environ Pollut 229:69–86.
102. Xu J, Buck M, Eklöf K, Ahmed OO, Schaefer

JK, Bishop K et al (2019) Mercury methylating
microbial communities of boreal forest soils.
Sci Rep 9:518.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37383-z
103. Ling Q, Guo Y, Liang Y, Yin Y, Cai Y (2020)

Microbial uptake of HgS nanoparticles and its
effect on mercury methylation. Environ Chem
2:292–300. Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.7524/j.issn.0254-
6108.2019112601
104. Bigham GN, Murray KJ, Masue-Slowey Y,

Henry EA (2017) Biogeochemical controls on
methylmercury in soils and sediments:
implications for site management. Integr
Environ Assess Manag 13:249–263.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1822
105. Shahid M, Khalid S, Bibi I, Bundschuh J, Niazi

NK, Dumat C (2020) A critical review of
mercury speciation, bioavailability, toxicity
and detoxification in soil-plant environment:
ecotoxicology and health risk assessment. Sci
Total Environ 711:134749.
9
106. Zhao L, Qiu G, Anderson CW, Meng B, Wang

D, Shang L et al (2016) Mercury methylation
in rice paddies and its possible controlling
factors in the Hg mining area, Guizhou
province, Southwest China. Environ Pollut
215:1–9.
107. Eklöf K, Bishop K, Bertilsson S, Björn E, Buck

M, Skyllberg U et al (2018) Formation of
mercury methylation hotspots as a
consequence of forestry operations. Sci Total
Environ 613:1069–1078. Download PDF
1
108. Qiu G, Feng X, Wang S, Shang L (2005)

Mercury and methylmercury in riparian soil,
sediments, mine-waste calcines, and moss
from abandoned Hg mines in east Guizhou
province, southwestern China. Appl Geoch
20:627–638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2004.09
.006
109. Xu X, Meng B, Zhang C, Feng X, Gu C, Guo J

et al (2017) The local impact of a coal-fired
power plant on inorganic mercury and methyl-
mercury distribution in rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Environ Pollut 223:11–18.
110. Mailman M, Bodaly RA (2005) Total mercury,

methyl mercury, and carbon in fresh and
burned plants and soil in Northwestern
Ontario. Environ Pollut 138:161–166.
111. Schuster PF, Schaefer KM, Aiken GR, Antweiler

RC, Dewild JF, Gryziec JD et al (2018)
Permafrost stores a globally significant amount
of mercury. Geophys Res Lett 45:1463–1471.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075571
Download PDF
112. Hararuk O, Obrist D, Luo Y (2013) Modelling
the sensitivity of soil mercury storage to
climate-induced changes in soil carbon pools.
Biogeosciences 10:2393–2407.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-2393-2013
113. Amos HM, Sonke JE, Obrist D, Robins N,

Hagan N, Horowitz HM, Mason RP et al (2015)
Observational and modeling constraints on
global anthropogenic enrichment of mercury.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es5058665
114. Mason RP, Choi AL, Fitzgerald WF,

Hammerschmidt CR, Lamborg CH, Soerensen
AL et al (2012) Mercury biogeochemical cycling
in the ocean and policy implications. Environ
Res 119:101–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.013
115. Fitzgerald WF, Lamborg CH (2014)

Geochemistry of mercury in the environment.
In: Treatise on Geochemistry, 2nd edition
116. Amos HM, Jacob DJ, Streets DG, Sunderland

EM (2013) Legacy impacts of all-time
anthropogenic emissions on the global mercury
cycle. Global Biogeoch Cy 27:410–421.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gbc.20040
117. Wang J, Feng X, Anderson CW, Xing Y, Shang
L (2012) Remediation of mercury contaminated Download PDF
sites–a review. J Hazard Mater 221:1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.04.035
118. Li S, Jia Z (2018) Heavy metals in soils from a

representative rapidly developing megacity
(SW China): levels, source identification and
apportionment. CATENA 163:414–423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.12.035
119. Obrist D, Pearson C, Webster J, Kane T, Lin CJ,

Aiken GR et al (2016) A synthesis of terrestrial
mercury in the western United States: spatial
distribution defined by land cover and plant
productivity. Sci Total Environ 568:522–535.
120. Tóth G, Hermann T, Szatmári G, Pásztor L

(2016) Maps of heavy metals in the soils of the
European Union and proposed priority areas
for detailed assessment. Sci Total Environ
565:1054–1062.
5
121. Lima LC, Egreja Filho FB, Linhares LA,

Windmoller CC, Yoshida MI (2015)
Accumulation and oxidation of elemental
mercury in tropical soils. Chemosphere
134:181–191.
4.020 Download PDF
122. Sharma R, Ramteke S, Patel KS, Kumar S,

Sarangi B, Agrawal SG et al (2015)
Contamination of lead and mercury in coal
basin of India. J Environ Prot 6:1430–1441.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.612124
123. Taylor M (2014) Soil quality monitoring in the

Waikato Region 2012. WRC Technical Report
2013/49, Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton,
New Zealand.
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/tr201349/.
Accessed 3 Sept 2014
124. Halbach K, Mikkelsen Ø, Berg T, Steinnes E

(2017) The presence of mercury and other
trace metals in surface soils in the Norwegian
Arctic. Chemosphere 188:567–574.
9.012
125. Bailey EA, Gray JE, Theodorakos PM (2002)

Mercury in vegetation and soils at abandoned
mercury mines in southwestern Alaska. USA.
Geochem Explor Environ A 2:275–285.
https://doi.org/10.1144/1467-787302-032
126. Higueras P, Oyarzun R, Biester H, Lillo J,

Lorenzo S (2003) A first insight into mercury
distribution and speciation in soils from the
Almadén mining district, Spain. J Geochem Download PDF
Explor 80(1):95–104.
6742(03)00185-7
127. Gosar M, Šajn R, Biester H (2006) Binding of

mercury in soils and attic dust in the Idrija
mercury mine area (Slovenia). Sci Total
Environ 369:150–162.
06
128. Bernaus A, Gaona X, van Ree D, Valiente M

(2006) Determination of mercury in polluted
soils surrounding a chlor-alkali plant: direct
speciation by X-ray absorption spectroscopy
techniques and preliminary geochemical
characterisation of the area. Anal Chim Acta
565:73–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2006.02.020
129. Richardson JB, Moore L (2020) A tale of three

cities: mercury in urban deciduous foliage and
soils across land-uses in Poughkeepsie NY,
Hartford CT, and Springfield MA USA. Sci
Total Environ 715:136869.
69
130. Cheng H, Li M, Zhao C, Li K, Peng M, Qin A,

Cheng X (2014) Overview of trace metals in the
urban soil of 31 metropolises in China. J
Geochem Explor 139:31–52. Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.08.012
131. Tijhuis L, Brattli B, Sæther OM (2002) A

geochemical survey of topsoil in the city of
Oslo, Norway. Environ Geochem Hlth 24:67–
94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013979700212
132. Manta DS, Angelone M, Bellanca A, Neri R,

Sprovieri M (2002) Heavy metals in urban
soils: a case study from the city of Palermo
(Sicily), Italy. Sci Total Environ 300:229–243.
9697(02)00273-5
133. Rodrigues S, Pereira ME, Duarte AC, Ajmone-

Marsan F, Davidson CM, Grčman H et al
(2006) Mercury in urban soils: a comparison
of local spatial variability in six European
cities. Sci Total Environ 368:926–936.
08
134. Cheng H, Zhao C, Liu F, Yang K, Liu Y, Li M et

al (2013) Mercury drop trend in urban soils in
Beijing, China, since 1987. J Geochem Explor
124:195–202.
135. Ottesen RT, Birke M, Finne TE, Gosar M,
Locutura J, Reimann C et al (2013) Mercury in Download PDF
European agricultural and grazing land soils.

Appl Geoch 33:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2012.12.
013
136. Loska K, Wiechuła D, Korus I (2004) Metal

contamination of farming soils affected by
industry. Environ Int 30:159–165.
4120(03)00157-0
137. Ahmadi M, Akhbarizadeh R, Haghighifard NJ,

Barzegar G, Jorfi S (2019) Geochemical
determination and pollution assessment of
heavy metals in agricultural soils of south
western of Iran. J Environ Health Sci Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-019-00379-6
138. Navrátil T, Shanley J, Rohovec J, Hojdová M,

Penížek V, Buchtová J (2014) Distribution and
pools of mercury in Czech forest soils. Water
Air Soil Poll 225:1829.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-013-1829-1
139. Åkerblom S, Meili M, Bringmark L, Johansson

K, Kleja DB, Bergkvist B (2008) Partitioning of
Hg between solid and dissolved organic matter
in the humus layer of boreal forests. Water Air
Soil Poll 189:239–252.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9571-1
Download PDF
140. Boszke L, Kowalski A, Siepak J (2004) Grain
size partitioning of mercury in sediments of
the middle Odra River (Germany/Poland).
Water Air Soil Poll 159:125–138.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WATE.0000049171
.22781.bd
141. Fiorentino JC, Enzweiler J, Angélica RS (2011)

Geochemistry of mercury along a soil profile
compared to other elements and to the parental
rock: evidence of external input. Water Air Soil
Poll 221:63–75.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-011-0769-x
142. do Valle CM, Santana GP, Augusti R, Egreja

Filho FB, Windmöller CC (2005) Speciation
and quantification of mercury in Oxisol,
Ultisol, and Spodosol from Amazon (Manaus,
Brazil). Chemosphere 58:779–792.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.
09.005
143. Armesto AG, Bibián-Núñez L, Campillo-Cora

C, Pontevedra-Pombal X, Arias-Estévez M,
Nóvoa-Muñoz JC (2018) Total mercury
distribution among soil aggregate size fractions
in a temperate forest podzol. Span J Soil Sci
8:190–202.
https://doi.org/10.3232/SJSS.2018.V8.N1.05
144. Yin R, Gu C, Feng X, Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft
DP, Lepak RF et al (2016) Distribution and Download PDF
geochemical speciation of soil mercury in

Wanshan Hg mine: effects of cultivation.
Geoderma 272:32–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.04.028
145. Wang DY, Qing CL, Guo TY, Guo YJ (1997)

Effects of humic acid on transport and
transformation of mercury in soil-plant
systems. Water Air Soil Poll 95:35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02406154
146. Smith T, Pitts K, McGarvey JA, Summers AO

(1998) Bacterial oxidation of mercury metal
vapor, Hg(0). Appl Environ Microbiol
64:1328–1332
147. Colombo MJ, Ha J, Reinfelder JR, Barkay T,

Yee N (2013) Anaerobic oxidation of Hg (0)
and methylmercury formation by
Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132. Geochim
Cosmochim Ac 112:166–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2013.03.001
148. Colombo MJ, Ha J, Reinfelder JR, Barkay T,

Yee N (2014) Oxidation of Hg(0) to Hg(II) by
diverse anaerobic bacteria. Chem Geol
363:334–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.11.02
0
149. Gustin MS, Ericksen JA, Schorran DE,
Johnson DW, Lindberg SE, Coleman JS (2004) Download PDF
Application of controlled mesocosms for

understanding mercury air- soil—plant
exchange. Environ Sci Technol 38:6044–6050.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0487933
150. Fantozzi L, Ferrara R, Dini F, Tamburello L,

Pirrone N, Sprovieri F (2013) Study on the
reduction of atmospheric mercury emissions
from mine waste enriched soils through native
grass cover in the Mt. Amiata region of Italy.
Environ Res 125:69–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.02.004
151. Mazur M, Mitchell CPJ, Eckley CS, Eggert SL,

Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD et al (2014) Gaseous
mercury fluxes from forest soils in response to
forest harvesting intensity: a field manipulation
experiment. Sci Total Environ 496:678–687.
8
152. Ericksen JA, Gustin MS, Schorran DE,

Johnson DW, Lindberg SE, Coleman JS (2003)
Accumulation of atmospheric mercury in forest
foliage. Atmos Environ 37:1613–1622.
2310(03)00008-6
153. Leonard TL, Taylor GE Jr, Gustin MS,

Fernandez GC (1998) Mercury and plants in
contaminated soils: 1. Uptake, partitioning,
and emission to the atmosphere. Environ Download PDF
Toxicol Chem 17:2063–2071.

https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620171024
154. Frescholtz TF, Gustin MS, Schorran DE,

Fernandez GC (2003) Assessing the source of
mercury in foliar tissue of quaking aspen.
Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2114–2119.
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620220922
155. Assad M, Parelle J, Cazaux D, Gimbert F,

Chalot M, Tatin-Froux F (2016) Mercury
uptake into poplar leaves. Chemosphere 146:1–
7.
.103
156. Fleck JA, Grigal DF, Nater EA (1999) Mercury

uptake by trees: an observational experiment.
Water Air Soil Poll. 115:513–523.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005194608598
157. Dago A, González I, Ariño C, Martínez-

Coronado A, Higueras P, Díaz-Cruz JM et al
(2014) Evaluation of mercury stress in plants
from the Almadén mining district by analysis
of phytochelatins and their Hg complexes.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es405619y
158. Laacouri A, Nater EA, Kolka RK (2013)
Distribution and uptake dynamics of mercury Download PDF
in leaves of common deciduous tree species in

Minnesota, USA. Environ Sci Technol
47:10462–10470.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es401357z
159. Arnold J, Gustin MS, Weisberg PJ (2018)

Evidence for nonstomatal uptake of Hg by
aspen and translocation of Hg from foliage to
tree rings in Austrian pine. Environ Sci
Technol 52:1174–1182.
160. Moreno-Jiménez E, Gamarra R, Carpena-Ruiz

RO, Millán R, Peñalosa JM, Esteban E (2006)
Mercury bioaccumulation and phytotoxicity in
two wild plant species of Almadén area.
Chemosphere 63:1969–1973.
09.043
161. Qian X, Wu Y, Zhou H, Xu X, Xu Z, Shang L et

al (2018) Total mercury and methylmercury
accumulation in wild plants grown at
wastelands composed of mine tailings: insights
into potential candidates for phytoremediation.
162. De Temmerman L, Waegeneers N, Claeys N,

Roekens E (2009) Comparison of
concentrations of mercury in ambient air to its
accumulation by leafy vegetables: an important Download PDF
step in terrestrial food chain analysis. Environ

Poll 157:1337–1341.
163. Egler SG, Rodrigues-Filho S, Villas-Bôas RC,

Beinhoff C (2006) Evaluation of mercury
pollution in cultivated and wild plants from
two small communities of the Tapajós gold
mining reserve, Pará State. Brazil. Sci Total
Environ 368(1):424–433
164. Svoboda L, Havlíčková B, Kalač P (2006)

Contents of cadmium, mercury and lead in
edible mushrooms growing in a historical
silver-mining area. Food Chem 96:580–585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.03.0
12
165. Falandysz J, Mędyk M, Treu R (2018) Bio-

concentration potential and associations of
heavy metals in Amanita muscaria (L.) Lam.
from northern regions of Poland. Environ Sci
Pollut R. 25(25):25190–25206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2603-0
166. Millhollen AG, Gustin MS, Obrist D (2006)

Foliar mercury accumulation and exchange for
three tree species. Environ Sci Technol
40:6001–6006.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0609194
Download PDF
167. Asati A, Pichhode M, Nikhil K (2016) Effect of
heavy metals on plants: an overview. Int J Appl
Innov Eng Mgmt 5:56–66
168. Ahammad SJ, Sumithra S, Senthilkumar P

(2018) Mercury uptake and translocation by
indigenous plants. Rasayan J Chem. 11:1–12.
https://doi.org/10.7324/RJC.2018.1111726
169. Safari F, Akramian M, Salehi-Arjmand H,

Khadivi A (2019) Physiological and molecular
mechanisms underlying salicylic acid-
mitigated mercury toxicity in lemon balm
(Melissa officinalis L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
183:109542.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109542
170. Zhou ZS, Wang SJ, Yang ZM (2008) Biological

detection and analysis of mercury toxicity to
alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants. Chemosphere
70:1500–1509.
8.028
171. Azevedo R, Rodriguez E (2012) Phytotoxicity of

mercury in plants: a review. J Bot.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/848614
172. Patra M, Sharma A (2000) Mercury toxicity in

plants. Bot Rev 66:379–422.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02868923
Download PDF
173. Moreno FN, Anderson CW, Stewart RB,

Robinson BH (2004) Phytoremediation of
mercury-contaminated mine tailings by
induced plant-mercury accumulation. Environ
Pra 6:65–175.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046604000274
174. Obrist D (2007) Atmospheric mercury

pollution due to losses of terrestrial carbon
pools? Biogeochemistry 85:119–123.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9108-0
175. Lomonte C, Doronila AI, Gregory D, Baker AJ,

Kolev SD (2010) Phytotoxicity of biosolids and
screening of selected plant species with
potential for mercury phytoextraction. J
Hazard Mater 173:494–501.
176. Fasani E, Manara A, Martini F, Furini A,

DalCorso G (2018) The potential of genetic
engineering of plants for the remediation of
soils contaminated with heavy metals. Plant,
Cell Environ 41:1201–1232.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12963
177. Ahmed I, Sebastain A, Prasad MNV, Kirti PB

(2019) Emerging trends in transgenic
technology for phytoremediation of toxic
metals and metalloids. In: Prasad MNV (ed)
Transgenic plant technology for remediation of Download PDF
toxic metals and metalloids. Academic Press,

Cambridge, pp 43–62
178. Kim Y-O, Bae H-J, Cho E, Kang H (2017)

Exogenous glutathione enhances mercury
tolerance by inhibiting mercury entry into
plant cells. Front Plant Sci 8:683.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00683
179. Cho UH, Park JO (2000) Mercury-induced

oxidative stress in tomato seedlings. Plant Sci
156:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-
9452(00)00227-2
180. Israr M, Sahi SV (2006) Antioxidative

responses to mercury in the cell cultures of
Sesbania drummondii. Plant Physiol Bioch
44:590–595.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2006.09.021
181. Zhang T, Lu Q, Su C, Yang Y, Hu D, Xu Q

(2017) Mercury induced oxidative stress, DNA
damage, and activation of antioxidative system
and Hsp70 induction in duckweed (Lemna
minor). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 143:46–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.04.058
182. Gómez-Jacinto V, García-Barrera T, Gómez-

Ariza JL, Garbayo-Nores I, Vílchez-Lobato C
(2015) Elucidation of the defence mechanism
in microalgae Chlorella sorokiniana under Download PDF
mercury exposure. Identification of Hg–

phytochelatins. Chem Biol Interact 238:82–
90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2015.06.013
183. Wani AB, Chadar H, Wani AH, Singh S,

Upadhyay N (2017) Salicylic acid to decrease
plant stress. Environ Chem Lett 15:101–123.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-016-0584-0
184. Kováčik J, Rotková G, Bujdoš M, Babula P,

Peterková V, Matúš P (2017) Ascorbic acid
protects Coccomyxa subellipsoidea against
metal toxicity through modulation of ROS/NO
balance and metal uptake. J Hazar Mat
339:200–207.
5
185. Zhou X, Gao A, Zhang C, Xu W, Shi X (2017)

Exogenous selenium alleviates mercury
toxicity by preventing oxidative stress in rice
(Oryza sativa) seedlings. Int J Agric Biol
19:1593–1600
186. Seneviratne M, Rajakaruna N, Rizwan M,

Madawala HMSP, Yong Sik Ok YS, Vithanage
M (2019) Heavy metal-induced oxidative
stress on seed germination and seedling
development: a critical review. Environ
Geochem Health 41:1813–1831.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-0005-8 Download PDF
187. Hasanuzzaman M, Hossain MA, da Silva JAT,

Fujita M (2012) Plant response and tolerance
to abiotic oxidative stress: antioxidant defense
is a key factor. In: Venkateswarlu B, Shanker A,
Shanker C, Maheswari M (eds) Crop stress and
its management: perspectives and strategies.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 261–315.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2220-0
188. Cargnelutti D, Tabaldi LA, Spanevello RM, de

Oliveira Jucoski G, Battisti V, Redin M et al
(2006) Mercury toxicity induces oxidative
stress in growing cucumber seedlings.
Chemosphere 65:999–1006.
03.037
189. Patra M, Bhowmik N, Bandopadhyay B,

Sharma A (2004) Comparison of mercury, lead
and arsenic with respect to genotoxic effects on
plant systems and the development of genetic
tolerance. Environ Exp Bot 52:199–223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.02.
009
190. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010)

Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for
plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 8:199–
216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-010-
0297-8 Download PDF
191. Marrugo-Negrete J, Durango-Hernández J,

Pinedo-Hernández J, Enamorado-Montes G,
Díez S (2016) Mercury uptake and effects on
growth in Jatropha curcas. J Environ Sci
48:120–125.
192. Teixeira DC, Lacerda LD, Silva-Filho EV

(2018) Foliar mercury content from tropical
trees and its correlation with physiological
parameters in situ. Environ Pollut 242:1050–
1057.
193. Manikandan R, Sahi SV, Venkatachalam P

(2015) Impact assessment of mercury
accumulation and biochemical and molecular
response of Mentha arvensis: a potential
hyperaccumulator plant. Sci World J.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/715217
194. Mahbub KR, Krishnan K, Naidu R, Andrews S,

Megharaj M (2017) Mercury toxicity to
terrestrial biota. Ecol Indic 74:451–462.
67
195. Zhou ZS, Huang SQ, Guo K, Mehta SK, Zhang
PC, Zhi MY et al (2007) Metabolic adaptations Download PDF
to mercury-induced oxidative stress in roots of

Medicago sativa L. J Inorg Biochem 101:1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2006.05.01
1
196. Bash JO, Miller DR, Meyer TH, Bresnahan PA

(2004) Northeast United States and Southeast
Canada natural mercury emissions estimated
with a surface emission model. Atmos Environ
38:5683–5692.
58
197. Rea AW, Lindberg SE, Scherbatskoy T, Keeler

GJ (2002) Mercury accumulation in foliage
over time in two northern mixed-hardwood
forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 133:49–67.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012919731598
198. Magarelli G, Fostier AH (2005) Influence of

deforestation on the mercury air/soil exchange
in the Negro River Basin, Amazon. Atmos
Environ 39:7518–7528.
67
199. Selin MS, Lindberg SE (2005) Terrestrial Hg

fluxes: is the next exchange up, down, or
neither? In: Pirrone N, Mahaffey KR (eds)
Dynamics of mercury pollution on regional and
global scales. Springer, Boston, pp 241–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24494-8_11 Download PDF
200. Gustin MS, Engle M, Ericksen J, Lyman S,

Stamenkovic J, Xin M (2006) Mercury
exchange between the atmosphere and low
mercury containing substrates. Appl Geoch
21:1913–1923.
8.007
201. Selin NE, Jacob DJ, Yantosca RM, Strode S,

Jaeglé L, Sunderland EM (2008) Global 3D
land, ocean, atmosphere model for mercury:
present day versus preindustrial cycles and
anthropogenic enrichment factors for
deposition. Global Biogeoch Cy 22:1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003040
202. Gray JE, Theodorakos PM, Fey DL,

Krabbenhoft DP (2015) Mercury
concentrations and distribution in soil, water,
mine waste leachates, and air in and around
mercury mines in the Big Bend region, Texas.
Environ Geochem Hlth. 37:35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-014-9628-1
203. Wu G, Kang H, Zhang X, Shao H, Chu L, Ruan

C (2010) A critical review on the bio-removal
of hazardous heavy metals from contaminated
soils: issues, progress, eco-environmental
concerns and opportunities. J Hazard Mater
174:1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.11 Download PDF
204. Teršič T, Gosar M, Šajn R (2009) Impact of

mining activities on soils and sediments at the
historical mining area in Podljubelj, NW
Slovenia. J Geochem Explor 100:1–10.
205. Banásová V (1999) Vegetation on

contaminated sites near an Hg mine and
smelter. In: Ebinghaus RR, Turner RR, de
Lacedra LD, Vasiljev O, Salomons W (eds)
Mercury contaminated sites. Springer, Berlin,
pp 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
662-03754-6
206. Boente C, Albuquerque MTD, Gerassis S,

Rodríguez-Valdés E, Gallego JR (2019) A
coupled multivariate statistics, geostatistical
and machine-learning approach to address
soil pollution in a prototypical Hg-mining site
in a natural reserve. Chemosphere 218:767–
777.
1.172
207. Wahsha M, Maleci L, Bini C (2019) The impact

of former mining activity on soils and plants in
the vicinity of an old mercury mine (Vallalta,
Belluno, NE Italy). Geochem-Explor Envir
Anal 19:171–175.
https://doi.org/10.1144/geochem2018-040 Download PDF
208. Gemici Ü, Tarcan G, Somay AM, Akar T

(2009) Factors controlling the element
distribution in farming soils and water around
the abandoned Halıköy mercury mine
(Beydağ, Turkey). Appl Geoch 24:1908–1917.
.004
209. Xiao R, Wang S, Li R, Wang JJ, Zhang Z

(2017) Soil heavy metal contamination and
health risks associated with artisanal gold
mining in Tongguan, Shaanxi, China. Ecotox
Environ Safe 141:17–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.03.002
210. Yin D, He T, Yin R, Zeng L (2018) Effects of

soil properties on production and
bioaccumulation of methylmercury in rice
paddies at a mercury mining area, China. J
Environ Sci 68:194–205.
211. Chiarantini L, Rimondi V, Benvenuti M, Beutel

MW, Costagliola P, Gonnelli C et al (2016)
Black pine (Pinus nigra) barks as biomonitors
of airborne mercury pollution. Sci Total
Environ 569:105–113.
9
Download PDF
212. Hissler C, Probst JL (2006) Impact of mercury
atmospheric deposition on soils and streams in
a mountainous catchment (Vosges, France)
polluted by chlor-alkali industrial activity: the
important trapping role of the organic matter.
23
213. Grangeon S, Guédron S, Asta J, Sarret G,

Charlet L (2012) Lichen and soil as indicators
of an atmospheric mercury contamination in
the vicinity of a chlor-alkali plant (Grenoble,
France). Ecol Indic 13:178–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.024
214. Ullrich SM, Ilyushchenko MA, Kamberov IM,

Tanton TW (2007) Mercury contamination in
the vicinity of a derelict chlor-alkali plant. Part
I: sediment and water contamination of Lake
Balkyldak and the River Irtysh. Sci Total
Environ 381:1–16.
33
215. Esbrí JM, López-Berdonces MA, Fernández-

Calderón S, Higueras P, Díez S (2015)
Atmospheric mercury pollution around a
chlor-alkali plant in Flix (NE Spain): an
integrated analysis. Environ Sci Pollut R
22:4842–4850.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3305-x Download PDF
216. Biester H, Müller G, Schöler HF (2002)

Binding and mobility of mercury in soils
contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali
plants. Sci Total Environ 284:191–203.
9697(01)00885-3
217. Reis AT, Rodrigues SM, Araújo C, Coelho JP,

Pereira E, Duarte AC (2009) Mercury
contamination in the vicinity of a chlor-alkali
plant and potential risks to local population.
5
218. Zheng N, Liu J, Wang Q, Liang Z (2011)

Mercury contamination due to zinc smelting
and chlor-alkali production in NE China. Appl
Geoch 26(2):188–193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010.11.
018
219. Song Z, Li P, Ding L, Li Z, Zhu W, He T, Feng X

(2018) Environmental mercury pollution by an
abandoned chlor-alkali plant in Southwest
China. J Geochem Explor 194:81–87.
220. Zhu W, Li Z, Li P, Yu B, Lin CJ, Sommar J et al
(2018) Re-emission of legacy mercury from Download PDF
soil adjacent to closed point sources of Hg

emission. Environ Pollut 242:718–727.
221. Reis AT, Rodrigues SM, Davidson CM, Pereira

E, Duarte AC (2010) Extractability and
mobility of mercury from agricultural soils
surrounding industrial and mining
contaminated areas. Chemosphere 81:1369–
1377.
9.030
222. Liang J, Feng C, Zeng G, Gao X, Zhong M, Li X

et al (2017) Spatial distribution and source
identification of heavy metals in surface soils
in a typical coal mine city, Lianyuan, China.
223. Wu Q, Wang S, Wang L, Liu F, Lin CJ, Zhang

L et al (2014) Spatial distribution and
accumulation of Hg in soil surrounding a
Zn/Pb smelter. Sci Total Environ 496:668–
677.
67
224. Wang D, Shi X, Wei S (2003) Accumulation

and transformation of atmospheric mercury in
soil. Sci Total Environ 304:209–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048- Download PDF
9697(02)00569-7
225. Navrátil T, Burns DA, Nováková T, Kaňa J,

Rohovec J, Roll M et al (2018) Stability of
mercury concentration measurements in
archived soil and peat samples. Chemosphere
208:707–711.
06.033
226. Khan MN, Wasim AA, Sarwar A, Rasheed MF

(2011) Assessment of heavy metal toxicants in
the roadside soil along the N-5, National
Highway, Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess
182:587–595.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-1899-8
227. Beckers F, Awad YM, Beiyuan J, Abrigata J,

Mothes S, Tsang DC et al (2019) Impact of
biochar on mobilization, methylation, and
ethylation of mercury under dynamic redox
conditions in a contaminated floodplain soil.
Environ Inter 127:276–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.040
228. Bonanno G, Giudice RL, Pavone P (2012)

Trace element biomonitoring using mosses in
urban areas affected by mud volcanoes around
Mt. Etna. The case of the Salinelle, Italy.
Monit Assess 184:5181–5188.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2332-z Download PDF
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
The work was financed from the Own Research Fund

Institute of Environment Protection - National
Research Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations

Institute of Environmental Protection –
National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
Barbara Gworek & Wojciech Dmuchowski
Polish Academy of Sciences Botanical Garden

– Center for Biological Diversity Conservation
in Powsin, Prawdziwka 2 St, 02-973, Warsaw,
Poland
Aneta H. Baczewska-Dąbrowska
Contributions
WD has been responsible for the concept of the
manuscript and drafted the manuscript. BG and AH
B-D helped to further elaborate the manuscript. All
authors improved the final manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Aneta H. Baczewska-Dąbrowska.
Download PDF
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.
Consent for publication

Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article's Creative Commons Download PDF
licence and your intended use is not permitted by

statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you
will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article

Gworek, B., Dmuchowski, W. & Baczewska-Dąbrowska, A.H.
Mercury in the terrestrial environment: a review. Environ Sci
Eur 32, 128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-
00401-x
Received Accepted Published

09 March 2020 14 September 02 October 2020
2020
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00401-x
Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read
this content:
Get shareable link
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Keywords
Mercury Deposition and emissions from land
Soil pollution Content in plants

Download PDF
Support and Contact Terms and conditions
Jobs Privacy statement
Language editing for authors Accessibility
Scientific editing for authors Cookies
Leave feedback
Follow SpringerOpen
By using this website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions, California Privacy
Statement, Privacy statement and Cookies policy. Manage cookies/Do not sell my
data we use in the preference centre.
© 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Nature.

Mercury in The Terrestrial Environment - A Review - Environmental Sciences Europe - Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercury in The Terrestrial Environment - A Review - Environmental Sciences Europe - Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download PDF

Get published Explore Journals Books About Login

Environmental Sciences Europe

About Articles Submission Guidelines

Review Open Access Published: 02 October 2020

Mercury in the terrestrial

Environmental Sciences Europe 32, Article number: 128

on surfaces by way of wet and dry processes. These

continues to be one of the most important

Mercury is recognized as a toxic, persistent, and

Over the last few decades, considerable scientific

An improved understanding of the global mercury

release, Hg is transported and recycled between the

Hg is considered to be a peculiar chemical element

Hg-contaminated land environments pose a risk to

however, there are many hurdles on the way to

Our understanding of the critical processes driving

The main task for improving our knowledge of

1. How is mercury biogeochemical cycling

the Minamata Convention and other regulatory

While developing this paper, the method

i. Accurate descriptions of the research methods

environment [15]. The assessment of Hg emissions

Current emissions from natural sources;

Environmental archives offer an opportunity to

now thought responsible for over half the global

Fluxes of Hg to the air occur via the volatilization of

The updated global mercury budget shows the impact

Various models are applied to estimate Hg emission

the many applicable global, regional and national

Table 2 Annual emissions of mercury by

Emission values [11] for the aggregated source

Mercury emissions from natural sources

A characteristic feature of natural Hg emissions

wide value range, e.g., total emissions of 1600–

forests, savannas and grasslands) for 1997–2006 was

Exchange of mercury between atmospheric and

The different forms of atmospheric Hg may be

atmosphere, with the relative importance of these

Litter deposition is the predominant source of Hg in

Mercury in throughfall also includes a portion of

On the land surface, Hg deposition is mainly in the

For GEM (Hg0), the residence time is estimated at 6

following series [68]:

GEM 0.19 cm s−1 < TPM 2:1 cm s−1 < GOM

According to Marsik et al. [69], the dry deposition

tropical systems due to the relative balance between

Table 4 Summary of biome-level Hg

Emissions from soils have the form of GEM and

The properties of soils, e.g., Hg content, the

Soil Hg fluxes are significantly lower in dark

It is most difficult to estimate Hg emissions from

Soil moisture > light > air concentration > relative

average fluxes (or, in some cases, the range of fluxes)

Table 5 Summary of mercury fluxes from

Table 6 Average fluxes, or in some cases the

When analyzing the data in Table 6, the following

i. The largest amounts of Hg are emitted from

Deforestation can increase GEM emissions due to

Urban areas are of particular concern with respect to

i. Frequently high terrestrial Hg concentrations

In the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA), Hg fluxes